III! 


! 


i  til  i! 

Ills    ! 


i(  ii 


i 


\ 

Y* 


Washington  and 
Lincoln 

Leaders  of  the  Nation  in  the  Constitutional  Eras 
of  American  History 

By 
Robert  W.  McLaughlin 


With  Portraits 


G.   P.   Putnam's   Sons 

New  York  and  London 

a  be  fmicfcerbocfcer  press 

1912 


COPYRIGHT.  1912 

Bv- 
ROBERT  w.  MCLAUGHLIN 


TTbc  -fcnfcfecrbocfefr  pres«.  flew  Cork 


Preface 

THE  writer  has  tried  to  do  in  this  book  what  he 
believes  needs  to  be  done  in  some  book.  In  sup 
port  of  this  belief,  he  would  direct  attention  to  the 
following  facts:  No  one  else  has  attempted  to  es 
tablish  the  relation  of  those  great  leaders  in  gov 
ernment, — Washington  and  Lincoln.  It  is  true 
that  the  shelves  in  the  libraries  are  groaning  under 
the  burden  of  books  with  titles  bearing  one  or  both 
of  these  names.  Some  of  these  books  are  bio 
graphical.  Others  are  descriptive  of  the  political 
conditions  in  a  given  era,  with  the  one  or  the  other 
leader  as  the  dominant  personality.  Still  others 
relate  the  leaders  through  a  study  of  personal  traits 
of  character.  But,  curiously,  among  all  the  books, 
there  is  not  one  which  attempts  to  relate  these  great 
men  through  governmental  action  and  theory. 

Again,  there  is  a  widespread  and  growing  inter 
est  in  the  theories  of  government.  This  interest, 
though  world  wide,  is  nowhere  more  marked  than 
in  the  United  States.  At  no  time  in  our  history 
as  a  nation  have  more  people  been  interested  in 
governmental  problems  than  to-day.  This  deep- 

iii 

259991 


iv  Preface 

rooted  and  growing  interest  may  easily  be  missed 
by  the  casual  observer.  The  French  gentleman 
who  came  to  fight  for  America  in  the  Revolution, 
might  to-day,  as  he  did  in  1777,  write  home  in 
disgust,  that  there  was  more  enthusiasm  for 
La  Libert6  in  a  single  cafe"  in  Paris,  than  there  was 
in  the  whole  of  America.  But  he  would  be  mis 
taken  now  as  he  was  then.  Because  of  this  inter 
est,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  need 
exists  for  a  study,  having  as  its  aim,  the  tracing  of 
the  relation  between  the  nations,  two  supremely 
great  workers  in  government. 

Further,  this  need  is  emphasised,  when  it  is 
noted,  that  in  the  present  unusual  interest  in 
government,  the  outstanding  fact  is  the  frequency 
with  which  the  names  of  Washington  and  Lincoln 
are  used.  The  reader  has  but  to  glance  through 
the  articles  written  by  the  publicists  of  the  day  to 
discover  how  true  this  is.  For  there  is  a  conviction 
which  deepens  with  the  years,  that  the  two 
"Fathers"  mastered  the  ideas  that  constitute 
the  basis  of  our  national  structure. 

This  suggests  another  fact,  namely,  the  vast 
amount  of  literature  which  must  be  examined  in 
order  to  establish  the  relation  between  these  two 
workers  in  government.  Doubtless  there  are 
many  who,  with  insistent  demands  in  other 


Preface  v 

directions,  or  with  the  literature  largely  inacces 
sible,  would  be  glad  to  have  at  their  disposal  the 
result  of  such  an  examination.  The  men,  who, 
because  of  their  public  relation  to  the  community, 
are  frequently  called  upon  to  speak  or  write  on 
Washington  or  Lincoln,  constitute  a  considerable 
number.  The  writer  cherishes  the  hope,  that  per 
haps  he  has  rendered  these  public  units  in  the 
nation's  life  some  service  in  the  pages  that  follow. 

That  the  literature  of  the  subject  bulks  large  is 
evident,  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  examina 
tion  must  be  made  in  at  least  three  directions. 
First,  a  bird's  eye  view  of  the  landscape  of  Ameri 
can  history  must  be  had.  It  is  as  true  in  history, 
as  in  nature,  that  a  sense  of  unity  comes  through 
the  large,  not  the  detached  view.  Second,  the 
stream  of  constitutional  development  as  it  flows 
across  the  landscape  must  be  traced,  in  order  to 
detect  that  which  is  distinctly  governmental,  and 
at  the  same  time  note  the  changes  taking  place. 
Third,  an  interpretation  must  be  made  of  the  work 
of  each  leader,  as  he  stood  in  his  place  upon  the 
bank  of  the  stream  of  constitutional  development, 
with  the  landscape  of  the  general  history  as  a 
background. 

In  making  this  examination  the  writer  has  made 
the  original  sources  the  basis  of  his  study.  In  some 


vi  Preface 

instances  this  has  not  been  altogether  possible. 
In  others,  where  the  secondary  sources  have  been 
of  unusual  merit,  he  has  gladly  used  them.  But 
in  all  he  has  kept  in  mind  the  words  of  the  Boston 
divine,  Thomas  Prince,  who  in  1702  said:  "I 
would  not  take  the  least  iota  upon  trust,  if  pos 
sible,  "  and,  "  I  cite  my  vouchers  to  every  passage. " 
It  only  remains  in  sending  forth  these  pages 
to  acknowledge  gratefully  the  assistance  rendered. 
This  assistance  has  come  from  so  many,  that 
detailed  mention  is  impossible.  However,  the 
unfailing  courtesy  of  the  officials  in  charge  of  the 
great  collections  of  historical  material  at  Columbia 
University,  the  University  of  California,  and  the 
New  York  and  Brooklyn  Public  Libraries,  should 
be  noted.  The  writer  desires  to  mention  the 
scholarly  head  of  the  department  of  history  at 
the  University  of  Chicago,  Andrew  C.  McLaugh- 
lin,  who  in  the  early  stages  of  this  work,  called 
attention  to  valuable  channels  of  information. 
To  these  names,  should  be  added,  those  of  Frank 
Hugh  Foster,  and  Albert  T.  Swing,  distinguished 
teachers  of  history,  whose  comments  have  been 
generous,  discriminating,  helpful,  and  always 
kindly. 

R.  W.  McL. 

BROOKLYN,  NEW  YORK, 
April  10,  1912. 


Contents 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION i 

THE  PARLIAMENTARY  ERA     .  .         .12 

THE  REVOLUTIONARY  ERA     ....       42 
THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  ERA    .  .         .83 

THE  NATIONAL  ERA 132 

THE  CIVIL  WAR  ERA 173 

THE  RELATION 221 

INDEX  265 


vii 


Illustrations 

PAGE 

GEORGE  WASHINGTON      .         .         .  Frontispiece 

From  the  painting  by  Rembrandt  Peale.     Reproduced 
by  permission  of  C.  Klackner,  N.  Y.    Copyright,  1894 

DANIEL  WEBSTER  .         .         .         .         .132 

From  an  etching  by  T.  Johnson 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN        .         .         .         .         .174 

From  a  drawing  from  life  by  F.  B.  Carpenter 


Washington  and  Lincoln 


Introduction 

THE  relation  of  Washington  and  Lincoln  may 
be  assumed.  By  some  subtle  law  of  historic  gravi 
tation  they  coalesce.  Think  of  one  and  you  think 
of  the  other.  Begin  by  measuring  one,  and  you 
end  by  measuring  the  other.  However,  it  is  one 
thing  to  assume  the  relation,  and  another  to 
explain  it.  A  study  of  the  subject  shows  that  the 
usual  method  by  which  the  relation  is  explained  is 
that  of  comparison.  A  sort  of  composite,  rough 
crayon  study  in  black  and  white  is  given;  the 
contrasts  in  black,  on  a  background  of  similarities 
in  white. 

Washington  is  seen  with  silver  buckles  on  his 
shoes,  buff  trimmings  on  his  coat,  a  service  or 
dress  sword  by  his  side,  his  hair  powdered  and 
clubbed  behind,  an  ample  mansion  to  live  in,  a 
mahogany  table  with  Madeira  and  walnuts, 
and  a  coach  and  four  at  the  door. 


2  Washington  and  Lincoln 

Lincoln  is  seen  with  deerskin  breeches,  a  coon- 
skin  cap,  an  axe  buried  in  the  tree,  a  humble  cabin 
in  the  clearing,  later  a  modest  frame  house  in  the 
village,  a  linen  duster  on  his  back  as  he  sits  behind 
the  jogging  horse  on  the  prairie  road,  a  grey  shawl 
over  his  shoulders,  and  a  tall  plug  hat  on  his  head 
as  he  walks  down  the  line  of  soldiers. 

Both  are  elemental  in  their  greatness,  being 
essentially  simple,  honest,  fearless,  and  patriotic. 
But  Washington  is  tall,  solemn,  haughty,  and 
rich — an  aristocrat.  Lincoln  is  gaunt,  humorous, 
genial,  and  poor — a  democrat.  Such  are  the 
contrasts  and  similarities. 

But  such  a  study  in  black  and  white,  though 
substantially  accurate,  leaves  something  to  be 
desired,  as  an  explanation  of  the  relation.  The 
tang  of  history  is  here.  The  reader  can  almost 
taste  the  walnuts  on  the  smooth  mahogany  of 
Washington's  table,  and  catch  the  delicious  odour 
of  the  green  wood,  as  Lincoln  opens  the  tree  with 
his  axe.  But  how  comes  it  that  he  is  reading  about 
these  trivial  yet  interesting  things?  The  answer 
is,  because  such  things  are  connected  with  the 
work  which  these  men  did.  History  is  not  primar 
ily  a  description  of  men,  but  a  record  of  men's 
achievements.  And  its  achievements  are  not 
recorded  because  its  men  have  been  described, 


Introduction  3 

but  its  men  are  described  because  their  achieve 
ments  have  been  recorded. 

Draw  a  picture  of  Lincoln  with  the  grey  shawl, 
and  the  tall  hat  rubbed  the  wrong  way,  if  you 
will,  but  the  reader  will  notice  the  picture  because 
under  the  hat  there  is  a  brain,  and  beneath  the 
shawl  there  is  a  heart,  which  working  in  unison 
write  the  Emancipation  Proclamation.  Describe 
Washington  in  the  blue  uniform,  with  buff  trim 
mings,  and  sword  by  his  side,  and  these  will 
attract,  because  a  great  man  wears  them,  as  he 
rides  forth  to  take  command  of  the  little  army 
around  Boston. 

The  important  thing  is  the  work,  and  the  deeper 
relations  of  history  are  explained  by  an  examina 
tion  of  the  work,  not  by  a  description  of  the  work 
man.  A  favourite  dictum  in  these  days  is,  "bi 
ography  is  history."  And  the  dictum  is  a  true 
one,  if  not  pushed  too  far.  But  it  needs  to  be 
balanced  by  another,  namely,  "history  is  philo 
sophy."  Through  the  biographical,  history  be 
comes  picturesque;  through  the  philosophical, 
history  becomes  significant.  This  does  not  mean 
that  the  one  aspect  of  history  is  distinct  from  the 
other. 

The  student  cannot  go  very  far  in  the  biograph 
ical  study  of  Washington  without  coming  upon  the 


4  Washington  and  Lincoln 

philosophical.  Neither  can  he  go  very  far  in  the 
philosophical  study  of  Lincoln  without  coming 
upon  the  biographical.  It  is  for  him  to  decide 
whether  the  emphasis  shall  be  placed  upon  one  or 
the  other.  In  this  study  it  is  placed  upon  the 
philosophical,  that  is,  upon  the  work,  because  the 
aim  is  to  explain  the  relation  of  the  workers. 
Bacon's  words  are  accepted:  "Be  the  workmen 
what  they  may  be,  let  us  speak  of  the  work:  that 
is,  the  true  greatness  of  kingdoms  and  estates, 
and  the  means  thereof. " 

In  seeking  to  explain  the  relation  of  Washington 
and  Lincoln,  the  student  may  be  guided  in  the 
selection  of  the  work  for  examination,  by  three 
facts:  First,  the  work  should  be  commensurate 
with  the  greatness  of  the  workmen.  Second,  the 
work  examined  should  be  sufficiently  alike  to  make 
possible  a  comparison.  Third,  the  work  should 
be  examined  under  the  law  of  development. 

These  men  were  supremely  great  in  the  field  of 
endeavour.  History  has  settled  this  and  the 
account  is  closed.  They  come  together  on  the 
higher  level  of  exceptional  effort,  rather  than  on 
the  lower  level  of  ordinary  attainment.  Washing 
ton  as  a  country  gentleman  did  much  painstaking 
work  on  his  plantation  at  Mount  Vernon.  He 
mounted  his  horse  and  rode  over  his  fields.  He 


Introduction  5 

checked  the  invoices  from  his  London  agent. 
Lincoln  in  early  manhood  worked  in  a  village  store 
at  New  Salem.  He  weighed  groceries,  and  some 
times  ran  down  the  road  to  overtake  customers 
and  rectify  mistakes.  All  this  makes  interesting 
reading,  and  goes  to  make  up  the  sum  total  of  our 
mental  pictures  of  their  personalities.  But  it  has 
no  value  in  such  a  study  as  this,  for  as  work,  it  is 
not  of  enough  magnitude  to  furnish  an  adequate 
revelation  of  the  ample  powers  of  the  workmen. 

Washington  was  a  great  general.  His  retreat 
across  New  Jersey  was  masterly,  and  students  of 
strategy  and  tactics  study  it  to-day,  as  one  of  the 
unusual  feats  of  war.  Lincoln  was  an  able  lawyer, 
with  a  brilliant  career  on  the  circuit  of  Illinois,  and 
his  method  in  convincing  a  jury  is  of  unending 
interest  to  legal  minds.  Lincoln  as  a  lawyer, 
and  Washington  as  a  general  would,  apart  from 
any  other  claim,  have  a  secure  place  in  American 
history.  But  each  would  have  no  relation  to  the 
other  in  our  history,  because  such  work  is  not 
comparable. 

These  men  lived  in  different  centuries.  And  the 
years  which  separate  them  are  the  most  transform 
ing  known  to  history,  as  regards  their  country. 
One  came  from  a  region  which  the  other  never  saw. 
About  the  time  that  Washington  was  girding  his 


6  Washington  and  Lincoln 

loins  for  his  supreme  work  in  government,  Monroe, 
who  later  was  President,  returned  from  a  trip 
into  the  West  and  said: 

A  great  part  of  the  territory  is  miserably  poor, 
especially  that  near  the  lakes  Michigan  and  Erie. 
And  that  upon  the  Mississippi  and  the  Illinois  con 
sists  of  extensive  plains  which  have  not  had  from 
appearances  and  will  not  have  a  single  bush  on  them 
for  ages. « 

Yet  from  this  region  Lincoln  came.  And  when 
he  appeared  to  do  his  mighty  work  in  government, 
this  region  was  the  garden  spot  of  the  continent. 
This  may  be  taken  as  an  illustration  of  the  changes 
which  came  in  area,  population,  wealth,  customs, 
and  laws.  The  nation  of  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century  was  the  nation  of  the  last 
quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  yet  it  was 
another  nation.  It  was  like  a  river,  which  begin 
ning  in  the  hills  as  a  spring,  tumbles  down  the 
rocks  to  the  plains,  there  to  deepen  and  widen  its 
channel,  until  it  bears  upon  its  bosom  the  tangled 
spars  of  commerce,  and  waters  upon  its  banks  the 
growing  cities  of  civilisation.  Lincoln  worked 
well  down  the  stream  of  our  history.  This  fact 
should  not  be  forgotten. 

The  work  then,  should  be  commensurate  with 

1  Writings  of  James  Monroe,  Hamilton  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  117. 


Introduction  7 

the  greatness  of  the  workmen,  and  sufficiently 
alike  to  make  possible  a  comparison.  And  this 
raises  the  question,  whether  it  is  possible  to  find 
such  work,  which,  when  examined,  will  show  the 
relation? 

At  the  outset  the  reader  will  meet  with  two  con 
ditions  of  great  importance.  One  is,  that  Ameri 
can  history  is  always  in  the  open.  The  metaphor 
of  the  stream  usually  pictures  the  river  as  losing 
itself  in  the  marsh  lands,  only  to  reappear  and 
flow  on.  But  there  is  no  place  in  our  history  for 
the  marshes,  with  tall  grasses  and  spongy  soil. 
The  stream  is  always  in  sight,  even  though  the 
current  runs  with  varying  force. 
,  In  this  respect,  American  history  is  peculiar. 
Statesmen  are  compelled  to  speak  of  the  English 
Constitution  as  that  " subtle  organism."  His 
torians  lose  themselves  in  the  mists,  when  in 
working  back,  they  try  to  trace  the  origins  of 
European  nations.  The  clouds  of  mythology  are 
always  playing  around  the  mountain  tops  on 
which  the  nations  began.  But  not  so  with  the 
United  States.  The  ringing  of  the  old  liberty 
bell  can  almost  be  heard  as  its  sounds  careen  on 
the  waves  of  the  Atlantic,  and  reverberate  upon 
the  shore  of  England.  The  rooms  in  which  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  Constitu- 


8  Washington  and  Lincoln 

tion  were  written  may  be  visited.  Original 
manuscripts  are  in  existence;  debates  and  con 
troversies  are  matter  of  record.  And  what  is 
true  of  the  beginning  is  also  true  of  the  subsequent 
history.  A  writer,  commenting  upon  this  says: 
"If  we  choose  to  look  we  can  see  the  founders  of 
the  tradition  at  work  like  bees  in  a  glass  hive, 
industrious  and  ungrudging.  From  Washington 
to  Lincoln  there  is  no  obscurity  anywhere. ' ' x 
This  openness  of  our  history  gives  the  student  a 
decided  advantage  in  his  research. 

The  second  condition  is,  that  American  history 
is  periodic  in  its  manifestation.  The  English 
writer  quoted  is  happy  in  his  simile  of  bees  work 
ing  in  the  hive.  For  bees  work  in  groups.  So  also 
the  workers  in  the  nation.  These  groups  are  seen 
at  work  in  five  periods: 

(i)  The  Parliamentary  period  of  1765.  (2)  The 
Revolutionary  period  of  1776.  (3)  The  Constitu 
tional  period  of  1787.  (4)  The  National  period  of 
1830.  (5)  The  Civil- War  period  of  1861. 

The  group  of  1765,  while  English,  must  be 
considered,  in  order  to  understand  our  history. 
For  this  group,  with  the  British  Empire  a  fact, 
due  to  the  French  war,  was  forced  to  experiment, 
and  not  being  successful  in  its  experiment,  created 

1  Oliver,  Alexander  Hamilton,  p.  172. 


Introduction  9 

the  problem  which  led  to  the  creation  of  the  Ameri 
can  nation.  The  group  of  1776,  the  first  in  Ameri 
can  history,  was  formed  to  make  effective  the 
protest  against  the  experiments  of  empire  made 
by  the  Parliamentary  group.  The  group  of  1787, 
called  together  because  the  protest  in  1776  had 
been  successful,  formulated  a  plan  of  government 
to  make  permanent  the  results  achieved.  The 
group  of  1830,  with  an  expanding  nation  pressing 
upon  it,  was  forced  to  define  the  government  as 
formulated  in  1787,  which  definitions  made  amid 
changed  conditions,  mark  an  advance  in  the 
theory  of  government.  The  group  of  1861  was 
drawn  together  in  order  to  apply  the  formulations 
made  in  1787,  and  definitions  given  in  1830. 
Thus  the  five  periods  may  be  characterised  by  the 
five  words — experiment — protest — formulation — 
definition — application. 

However,  while  the  periods  of  our  history  differ 
as  to  the  form  which  the  work  takes,  yet  they  show 
an  underlying  likeness.  Emerson  said  of  Mon 
taigne's  writings,  "Cut  his  pages  where  you  will, 
and  the  blood  comes."  This  is  true  of  American 
history.  Open  the  book  where  you  will,  and  there 
is  the  same  big,  vital  problem  of  power  in  govern 
ment.  The  men  who  gathered  in  the  British 
Parliament  following  the  Treaty  of  Paris  in  1763, 


io  Washington  and  Lincoln 

had  this  problem.  The  men  gathering  in  the 
capitol  of  1 86 1,  after  the  fall  of  Sumter,  also  had 
this  problem.  And  the  men  who  gathered  in 
the  intervening  periods  of  1776,  1787,  and  1830, 
had  the  same  problem.  And  the  relation  of  the 
different  groups  to  the  problem,  as  has  been  men 
tioned,  varied.  With  the  first  group  it  was  pro 
blem  and  experiment.  With  the  last  group  it  was 
problem  and  application. 

Now,  with  this  thought  of  American  history  as 
an  open  record  and  periodic  in  its  manifestation, 
let  us  return  to  our  question,  which  is,  whether 
it  is  possible  to  find  a  work  done  by  Washington 
and  Lincoln,  which  examined,  will  reveal  the 
workmen  and  thus  explain  the  relation? 

Certainly  an  examination  of  the  work  done  in 
the  periods  of  1776  and  1787,  will  reveal  Washing 
ton,  for,  as  will  be  shown  later,  he  was  the  domi 
nant  personality  in  these  two  periods.  And 
equally  certain  is  it,  that  an  examination  of  the 
work  done  in  1861,  will  reveal  Lincoln,  for  he  was 
the  commanding  leader  in  this  period.  And  the 
work  in  each  of  these  periods  was  such  as  to  meet 
the  conditions  laid  down. 

So  then,  to  gather  up  into  a  few  words  the  pur 
pose  and  aim  of  the  following  pages:  The  work 
during  five  periods  in  American  history  will  be 


Introduction  n 

examined  to  find  a  revelation  of  two  master 
workmen.  In  the  light  of  that  revelation  the 
work  will  be  compared.  This  comparison  will 
offer  an  explanation  for  the  relation  of  the  two 
great  leaders.  Washington  and  Lincoln  will  stand 
forth  in  the  supreme  task  of  government. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765 

AUGUST  i,  1774,  at  Williamsburg,  George  Wash 
ington  received  his  credentials  as  deputy  to  the 
First  Continental  Congress.  As  if  conscious  that 
their  deputy  was  superior,  the  delegates  from  the 
counties  of  Virginia  gave  the  credentials  a  touch 
of  distinction.  For  these  credentials  alone  among 
those  furnished  by  the  colonies  contained  the 
expression,  "The  security  and  happiness  of  the 
British  Empire."1 

The  delegates  as  they  gathered  in  the  quiet 
town  by  the  arm  of  the  sea,  doubtless  cared  little 
for  the  exact  words  used.  They  were  concerned 
rather,  with  a  clear  statement  of  the  authority 
which  they  wished  to  confer  upon  the  one  chosen 
to  act  for  them  in  the  following  months  at  Phila 
delphia.  Yet  in  the  use  of  this  expression,  as 
seen  in  its  context,  they  describe  by  suggestion 
the  movement  which  began  with  the  colonial 
resistance  at  Boston  and  ended  with  the  British 
surrender  at  Yorktown. 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  23. 

12 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765     13 

In  support  of  this  assertion,  notice  the  expression 
as  it  is  placed  in  juxtaposition  with  another  in  the 
credentials,  namely,  "the  present  critical  and 
alarming  situation  in  the  continent  of  North 
America."1  The  delegates  believed  that  the 
continent  and  the  empire  were  related,  and  that 
the  security  of  the  empire  was  conditioned  upon 
the  happiness  of  the  continent.  At  this  time  the 
security  of  the  whole  was  threatened,  because  the 
prosperity  of  the  colonies  was  lacking.  Here  was 
what  writers  are  pleased  to  call  the  centripetal  and 
centrifugal  forces  in  government.  The  centripetal 
tendency  showed  itself  in  the  tightening  grip  of 
administration  at  the  centre;  the  centrifugal  ten 
dency,  in  the  growth  of  autonomy  in  the  colonies. 
And  the  problem  of  this  era  was  how  to  secure  a 
balance  of  these  forces. 

Washington  understood  this.  A  few  days  later, 
when  he  mounted  his  horse  at  Mt.  Vernon  and 
started  North,  having  his  credentials  in  his 
saddle-bag,  he  believed  that  the  security  and 
happiness  of  the  British  Empire  were  in  jeopardy. 
He  was  pre-eminently  a  sane  and  cautious  man. 
Never  was  he  known  to  indulge  in  exaggerated 
statement  for  mere  effect.  He  accepted  the 
wording  of  his  credentials  at  its  face  value,  and 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  23. 


14          Washington  and  Lincoln 

rode  forward,  resolved  to  do  his  part  in  the 
present  crisis. 

The  expression  was  vague,  reflecting  the  thought 
of  the  period,  for  it  was  easy  enough  to  speak  of 
"the  security  and  happiness -of  the  British  Em 
pire.  "  But  what  did  men  mean  when  they  spoke 
thus?  Probably  Washington  did  not  know  how 
much  this  term  meant.  He  believed  that  his 
duty  consisted  in  doing  something  to  bring  about 
a  readjustment  of  the  forces  in  the  empire.  But 
what  this  something  was  he  did  not  know.  And 
this  was  not  strange.  The  period  was  one  for 
experiments.  The  language  of  men  on  both  sides 
of  the  Atlantic  was  in  advance  of  their  thinking. 
However,  there  was  nothing  unusual  in  this,  for 
the  momentous  eras  in  history  have  never  been 
explicit  in  verbal  statement.  Precise  statements 
are  the  results,  not  the  causes  of  epochal  move 
ments.  The  huge  ship  seen  in  the  mist  is  none 
the  less  real  because  its  spars  and  rigging  are  not 
clearly  discerned.  Men  saw  the  problems  of  em 
pire  with  a  sense  of  reality,  yet  with  vagueness. 

Washington  as  late  as  the  following  May,  on  his 
way  to  the  Second  Congress,  paused  midway  on 
the  Potomac  River  for  a  brief  visit  with  Jonathan 
Boucher.  And  in  response  to  a  warning  from  his 
friend  to  the  effect  that  his  errand  would  lead  to 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765     15 

civil  war,  replied,  "that  if  he  ever  heard  of  him 
joining  in  any  such  measures,  he  had  his  leave  to 
set  him  down  for  everything  wicked."1  Yet 
within  a  few  months  Washington  was  convinced 
that  such  measures  were  necessary.  And  in 
later  years  Boucher  never  succeeded  in  squaring 
his  remark  with  his  action.  It  was  not  necessary. 
Washington  in  his  day  was  simply  typical  of  its 
best  leadership  as  he  moved  in  the  direction  of 
that  which  he  did  not  comprehend. 

And  notice  also,  that  the  expression,  "the  secu 
rity  and  happiness  of  the  British  Empire/'  is 
accurate,  even  though  vague.  For  a  vague  state 
ment  is  sometimes  more  accurate  than  precise 
language.  As  has  been  suggested,  Virginia  alone 
used  this  expression.  The  Massachusetts  Bay 
delegates,  perhaps,  in  playing  for  position  in  the 
struggle,  speak  of  "  Great  Britain  and  the  American 
Colonies."2  But  even  granting  the  fundamental 
contention  of  the  colonies,  the  wording  was  in 
accurate.  At  this  time  the  colonies  were  theo 
retically  and  actually  a  part  of  the  larger  whole. 
And  to  press  the  accuracy  further,  the  colonies 
were  part  of  the  British  Empire,  not  Great  Britain. 
In  the  two  decades  preceding,  the  British  flag  had 

1  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  Literary  History  of  American  Revolution, 
vol.  i.,  p.  460. 

3  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  15. 


16          Washington  and  Lincoln 

been  planted  on  new  stretches  in  four  continents. 
Cook,  roaming  in  regions  hitherto  unexplored; 
Wolfe,  scaling  the  heights  at  Quebec;  Clive,  con 
quering  on  the  plains  of  Plassey;  and  indirectly, 
the  growing  power  of  Frederick  the  Great  in 
Europe  had  made  this  possible.  And  when  on 
February  10,  1763,  in  the  City  of  Paris  the  de 
finitive  treaty  was  signed,1  territorial  expansion 
reached  its  culmination  for  the  century  and  Great 
Britain  became,  what  it  has  never  ceased  to  be, 
the  mighty  British  Empire.  And  it  is  significant 
that  Washington,  moving  in  the  direction  of  a 
leadership  that  involved  the  creation  of  another 
empire,  had  in  his  possession  credentials  given 
him  by  a  colony,  which  alone  among  the  colonies 
of  the  continent,  stated  this  far-reaching  transi 
tion  from  kingdom  to  empire. 

With  this  glimpse  of  Washington  coming  into 
the  foreground,  let  us  move  back  a  decade  and 
consider  the  Parliamentary  group  of  1765,  as  it 
faced  the  problem  caused  by  the  emergence  of 
empire.  The  old  saying,  that  next  to  a  defeat  the 
worst  thing  that  can  happen  is  a  victory,  finds  a 
stupendous  illustration  in  the  work  of  this  period. 
The  French  had  been  defeated  and  the  result  of 
victory  was  a  vast  territorial  expansion.  This 

1  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  vol.  xv.,  p.  1291. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765     17 

expansion  called  for  a  change  in  the  colonial 
policy  in  order  that  the  results  of  the  victory 
might  be  made  permanent  and  effective.  In 
making  this  change  a  clash  came  with  the  colonies. 
The  outcome  of  the  clash,  and  the  price  paid 
for  the  victory,  was  the  loss  of  the  American 
colonies.  Washington  came  to  his  leadership 
because  of  this  change  in  policy.  This  being 
true,  it  will  be  necessary,  in  order  to  under 
stand  Washington,  to  consider  briefly  the  colonial 
policy  of  England. 

In  the  three  hundred  years  of  England's 
colonial  history,  there  have  been  three  distinct 
policies :  namely,  the  commercial,  the  political,  and 
the  reciprocal.  The  commercial  policy  began  in 
the  seventeenth  and  continued  well  into  the  eigh 
teenth  century.  Under  this  policy  the  colonies 
were  considered  as  economic  possessions  for 
the  enrichment  of  the  mother  country.  They 
were  outlying  supply  stations  for  the  support  of 
the  mercantile  interests.  About  the  middle  of 
the  eighteenth  century  the  policy  became  political. 
The  colonies  were  treated  as  territorial  dependen 
cies  to  be  defended  by,  and  to  assist  in,  the  defence 
of  the  empire.  In  the  nineteenth  century  the 
policy  became  reciprocal.  The  colonies  were 
thought  of  as  co-ordinate  parts  of  the  empire. 


i8  Washington  and  Lincoln 

Commerce  followed  natural  channels,  and  develop 
ment  through  self-government  was  encouraged. 
The  colonies  were  parts  of  a  whole,  each  receiving 
and  contributing  according  to  its  possibilities. 

This  threefold  distinction  cannot  be  pushed  too 
far.  There  never  was  a  time  during  the  seven 
teenth  century  when  the  commercial  policy  pre 
vailed  that  the  political  did  not  also  exist.  There 
never  was  a  time  during  the  eighteenth  century 
when  the  political  policy  prevailed  that  the  com 
mercial  did  not  also  exist.  And  there  never  was 
a  time  during  the  nineteenth  century  that  the 
commercial  and  political  did  not  survive  along 
with  the  reciprocal  policy.  In  fact,  there  are 
those  who  claim  that  the  supreme  task  for  English 
statesmen  in  the  twentieth  century  is  the  blending 
of  the  commercial,  political,  and  reciprocal  into 
a  confederated  empire.  The  word  for  this  cen 
tury  in  English  colonial  policy,  is  undoubtedly— 
confederation. 

It  may  be  further  noted  that  the  changes  in 
England's  colonial  policy  have  come  less  often 
through  gradual  development  than  by  radical 
modification.  In  the  nineteenth  century  Adam 
Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations  exerted  such  an  in 
fluence  upon  the  public  mind  as  to  effect  a  radical 
modification,  which  amounted  to  a  practical 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    19 

abandonment  of  the  colonial  traditions.1  In  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  change  was  less  pro 
nounced  in  its  economic  aspect,  but  none  the  less 
radical,  as  it  involved  a  break  with  certain  theories 
of  government. 

As  has  been  suggested,  the  English  ministry 
believed  that  the  colonial  policy  should  be  adjusted 
to  meet  the  changed  conditions  due  to  the  emer 
gence  of  empire.  This  meant  an  extension  of  the 
system  of  imperial  control,  which  required  a 
strengthening  of  the  military  defence  in  the  distant 
parts,  and  a  reorganisation  of  the  fiscal  system  for 
the  support  of  the  defence  thus  established.  To 
accomplish  this  reorganisation,  three  methods 
were  in  turn  experimented  with  in  the  American 
colonies  during  the  period  beginning  with  1763. 

The  first  method  suggested,  placed  the  entire 
responsibility  for  the  military  defence  both  as  to 
money  and  men,  upon  the  colonies  in  question. 
In  1753,  the  English  Board  of  Trade  advised  the 
calling  of  a  conference  of  the  colonies  to  consider 
this  method.  In  the  following  year,  nine  colonies 
were  represented  in  a  conference  at  Albany.  The 
committee  appointed  at  this  conference  to  prepare 
a  plan,  went  beyond  the  advice  of  the  English 

1  Published  in  1776,  but  did  not  begin  to  work  on  the  English 
political  mind  until  later.  Thus  as  an  influence  it  is  placed  in 
the  i  gth  century. 


20          Washington  and  Lincoln 

Board  and  reported  a  scheme  of  organisation 
which  called  for  a  consideration  of  the  civil  as 
well  as  military  affairs.  A  governor-general  was  to 
be  appointed  and  supported  by  the  Crown.  A 
grand  council  was  to  be  elected  by  the  assemblies 
of  the  colonies,  having  authority  to  determine  the 
number  of  men  needed  and  the  amount  of  money 
required  for  their  support,  subject  always  to  the 
veto  of  the  home  government.  It  is  an  open 
question  whether  the  English  ministry  would  have 
approved  of  this  plan.  However,  it  was  never 
offered  for  their  approval,  as  the  colonies,  to  whom 
it  was  first  submitted,  rejected  it. l 

The  second  method  was  that  of  requisition.  By 
this  means  the  home  government,  acting  under 
advice  of  the  provincial  governors,  determined  the 
number  of  men  and  amount  of  money  needed 
for  military  defence,  and  then  called  upon  the 
assemblies  in  the  colonies  to  provide  the  same. 
The  method  was  an  old  one.  Its  success,  however, 
in  the  past  had  not  been  uniform.  Some  colonies 
had  more  than  met  the  requisition  and  others  had 
less  than  met  it.  In  the  judgment  of  the  home 
government,  it  was  not  considered  an  adequate 
solution,  and  it  was  used  only  in  the  years  follow- 

1  The  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  Smythe  Ed.,  vol.  iii., 
pp.  197-226. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    21 

ing  the  failure  of  the  Albany  plan  for  want  of  a 
better  one.  Doubtless  the  leaders  in  England 
were  influenced  in  their  adverse  opinion  by  the 
decided  tendency  in  the  direction  of  centralisation. 
The  method  was  opposed  to  any  program  looking 
to  an  extension  of  imperial  control.  The  ministry 
was  not  easy  in  the  thought,  that  its  plans  for 
unifying  the  empire  were  conditioned  upon  the 
votes  of  crude  legislators  in  the  wilds  of  the  New 
World.  And  it  must  be  said  that  a  study  of  the 
requisition  system  during  the  eighteenth  century, 
indicates  that  the  ministry  was  not  far  wrong  in 
its  lack  of  confidence. 

The  third  method  tried  was  that  of  taxation. 
The  soldiers  had  been  stationed  in  the  colonies 
and  must  be  supported.  The  Parliamentary 
leaders  argued  as  follows:  The  colonies  will  not 
agree  upon  a  plan  of  union  for  their  own  military 
defence.  The  requisition  method  has  not  been  a 
success.  The  long  and  expensive  war  with  France 
was  carried  on  in  part  for  the  defence  of  the 
colonies.  The  home  government  has  incurred  an 
enormous  debt,  and  the  debt  of  the  colonies,  by 
comparison,  is  small.  England  with  eight  million 
people  has  a  debt  of  seven  hundred  million  dollars 
while  the  colonies  with  two  million  people  has  only 
four  millions  debt.  The  ten  thousand  soldiers 


22  Washington  and  Lincoln 

now  stationed  in  the  colonies  add  commercially 
to  their  wealth  and  much  to  their  security.  Since 
only  a  portion,  perhaps  less  than  one  half  of  the 
expense,  will  fall  upon  the  colonies,  the  method  of 
taxation,  under  the  circumstances,  is  necessary, 
wise,  and  just.  This  was  the  argument  advanced. 

However,  there  was  something  to  be  said  by  the 
colonies.  They  knew  that  through  the  trade 
regulations,  made  to  favour  the  British  merchants, 
they  were  sending  about  two  million  dollars 
annually  across  the  water.  This  they  considered 
as  an  indirect  tax,  and  knew  it  to  be  about  double 
the  amount  required  for  the  maintenance  of 
military  defence.  Again,  the  colonies  did  not 
feel  the  pressing  need  of  military  defence,  and 
suspected  that  the  ministry  was  more  interested 
in  extending  imperial  control  from  the  centre, 
than  in  strengthening  the  military  defence  on 
the  circumference. 

There  was  still  another  objection,  felt  rather 
than  expressed  by  the  colonies,  namely,  the  absence 
of  the  sense  of  dependence  implied  in  the  plans 
for  military  defence.  The  treaty  of  1763,  had 
changed  the  relation  of  the  colonies  to  the  home 
government.  And  in  changing  this,  the  political 
centre  of  gravity  of  the  empire  was  shifted.  An 
examination  of  the  correspondence  and  discussions 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    23 

during  the  negotiations  leading  up  to  the  making 
of  the  treaty,  show  that  the  English  leaders  an 
ticipated  this  objection. 

The  fact  is,  the  leaders  in  dictating  terms  in 
the  treaty  faced  a  dilemma.  If  they  accepted 
Guadaloupe  and  allowed  France  to  remain  on  the 
continent,  then  the  frontiers  of  the  empire  in 
America  were  in  constant  danger.  If  they  de 
manded  that  France  withdraw  from  the  continent, 
then  the  colonies,  no  longer  fearing  invasion, 
would  lose  their  sense  of  dependence  upon  the 
mother  country. x 

But  the  time  had  come  to  act.  The  soldiers 
were  garrisoned  in  the  colonies  and  funds  for  their 
maintenance  must  be  forthcoming.  The  English 
merchant  class  was  complaining  loudly  of  the 
increase  in  taxes.  So  in  1764,  the  Sugar  Bill,  and 
the  next  year  the  Stamp  Act,  were  introduced  by 
the  ministry  and  passed  by  large  majorities. 
Neither  bill  attracted  any  attention  in  England, 
yet  the  enactment  into  law  of  these  measures 
marks  the  radical  change  in  England's  colonial 
policy  by  which  the  emphasis  was  shifted  from  the 
commercial  to  the  political,  and  a  situation  created 
that  led  to  the  loss  of  the  American  colonies.2 

1  Beers,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  pp.  142-159. 

2 The  preamble  to  the  Sugar  Bill  read:  "Whereas  it  is  just 
and  necessary  that  a  revenue  be  raised  in  your  Majesty's  said 


24          Washington  and  Lincoln 

Curiously  enough,  the  Sugar  Bill  awakened  no 
interest  in  the  colonies,  but  the  Stamp  Act  at 
once  created  intense  excitement,  leading  to  open 
resistance,  which  in  turn  reacted  upon  England, 
and  precipitated  one  of  the  greatest  debates  in 
Parliament.  Suddenly  it  dawned  upon  the  leaders 
that  in  changing  the  colonial  policy  they  had 
raised  the  fundamental  questions  of  constitutional 
government.  In  the  debate,  one  of  the  great 
statesmen  said:  "America  if  she  fell,  would  fall 
like  the  strong  man;  she  would  embrace  the 
pillars  of  State,  and  pull  down  the  Constitution 
along  with  her."1 

This  is  very  strong  language,  and  the  question 
arises,  how  could  a  couple  of  legislative  enact 
ments,  having  to  do  with  the  duty  on  molasses  and 
sticking  stamps  on  commercial  paper  and  alma 
nacs,  lead  to  a  debate  of  such  magnitude?  Let  us 
consider  the  question. 

In  January,  1766,  the  new  Ministry  introduced 
in  Parliament  a  resolution  calling  for  the  repeal  of 
the  Stamp  Act,  passed  in  the  preceding  year. 
The  reason  given  for  advocating  the  repeal  was 
that  reports  had  been  received  indicating  such 


dominions  in  America,  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  defending, 
protecting,  and  securing  the  same."     4  George  III.,  chapter  15. 
1  British  Orations;  Adams  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  117. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    25 

opposition  in  the  colonies  that  the  effective  en 
forcement  of  the  law  was  impossible.  But  along 
with  the  resolution  for  repeal  was  a  Declaratory 
Act,  asserting  the  right  to  impose  the  tax  and 
saying  that  Parliament,  "had,  hath,  and  of 
right  ought  to  have,  full  power  and  authority  to 
make  laws  and  statutes  of  sufficient  force  and 
validity  to  bind  the  colonies  and  people  of  America 
subjects  of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  in  all 
cases  whatsoever. "  r  That  is,  the  resolution  for 
repeal  and  the  Declaratory  Act,  taken  together, 
meant  that  the  government  intended  actually  to 
retreat  from  its  position,  but  theoretically  to 
maintain  it.  This  dual  situation  opened  the 
debate,  which  continued  in  one  form  or  another 
for  ten  years,  engaging  the  efforts  of  the  ablest 
group  of  statesmen  ever  gathered  at  one  time  in 
the  English  Parliament. 

In  support  of  this  statement  some  names  have 
but  to  be  mentioned.  There  was  the  elder  Pitt, 
to  whom  Frederick  the  Great  referred  when  he 
said:  "England  has  taken  long  to  produce  a  great 
man,  but  here  is  one  at  last/'2  He  was  soon  to 
lay  aside  the  rdle  of  the  "Great  Commoner,"  and, 
moving  backward  into  the  future,  become  Lord 

1  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  161. 

1  Carlyle's  Frederick  the  Great,  Centennial  Ed.,  vol.  vi,  p.  263. 


26  Washington  and  Lincoln 

Chatham.  Opposed  to  him  was  the  profound 
Murray,  at  this  time  Lord  Mansfield,  whose  name 
will  linger  longest  in  history,  because  of  his  decision 
in  the  famous  Somerset  case.  In  the  same  branch 
of  Parliament  was  Lord  Camden,  also  masterful 
in  jurisprudence,  but  who,  unlike  Mansfield,  had  a 
breadth  of  interest  that  equalled  his  depth  of 
learning.  Along  with  this  trio  cast  in  massive 
mould,  was  Pownall,  who  had  what  the  others 
lacked,  a  practical  experience  in  colonial  affairs, 
and  whose  position  in  the  light  of  his  experience 
in  America  was  conciliatory.  Here  also  was 
Grenville,  the  author  of  the  Stamp  Act,  who, 
while  in  power  was  charged  with  doing  what 
his  predecessors  never  cared  to  do,  namely,  read 
the  American  despatches.1  Holding  an  under 
position,  yet  at  this  time  the  sensation  of  the 
political  clubs  of  London,  was  the  brilliant  Charles 
Townshend,  who,  in  the  following  year  became  the 
author  of  another  act,  and  whose  career  was  as 
meteoric  as  his  mind  was  brilliant.  In  compara 
tive  obscurity,  though  soon  to  be  known  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic,  was  Lord  North,  the  amiable, 
faithful,  and  unswerving  mouthpiece  of  the  King. 
And  finally  the  young  Irishman,  Edmund  Burke, 

1  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  iv,  p. 
50. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    27 

not  yet  a  member  of  Parliament,  but  a  constant 
visitor,  whose  mind  was  "Asiatic,"  and  who  was 
destined  to  take  a  most  conspicuous  place  as  the 
philosophic  statesman  of  the  period.  These  were 
the  leaders  in  the  Parliamentary  group. 

What  was  the  question  that  these  leaders  dis 
cussed,  which  if  answered  as  Pitt  feared  it  might 
be  answered,  would  mean  the  "pulling  down  of  the 
pillars  of  State  ?"  The  answer  is,  the  question 
involved  was  none  other  than  that  of  power — 
a  question  at  once  the  most  fundamental  and 
disturbing  in  constitutional  government,  whether 
that  of  a  monarchy  or  democracy. 

As  Guizot,  writing  in  the  next  century  said: 

What  is  the  source  of  sovereign  power  and  what  is 
its  limit?  Whence  does  it  come  and  where  does  it 
stop?  In  the  answer  to  this  question  is  involved  the 
real  principle  of  government;  for  it  is  the  principle, 
whose  influence  direct  or  indirect,  latent  or  obvious 
gives  to  societies  their  tendency  and  their  fate.1 

In  this  era  of  experiment,  the  Parliamentary 
leaders,  striving  to  adjust  the  colonial  policy  to 
changed  conditions  of  empire,  had  unintentionally 
come  upon  the  mighty  question. 

As  this  question  suddenly  loomed  big  before 
them,  four  problems  appeared;  or  rather,  four 

1  Guizot,  History  of  Representative  Government  in  Europe,  p.  57. 


28          Washington  and  Lincoln 

phases  of  this  one  question  were  seen;  for  big 
problems  are  like  rare  jewels,  flashing  varied  lights 
when  seen  from  different  angles. 

First,  granting  the  existence  of  power  in  govern 
ment,  where  in  the  creation  of  empire,  under  a 
constitution,  is  this  power  lodged?  Is  the  power 
absolute  at  the  centre  for  the  extension  of  imperial 
control?  Or  is  the  power  lodged  at  the  centre 
modified  by  the  power  lodged  at  the  circumfer 
ence?  And  if  there  is  power  other  than  at  the 
centre,  how  much? 

This  question  of  the  lodgment  of  power  was  not 
new  in  English  history,  although  it  appeared  at 
this  time  under  new  conditions.  The  Irish  House 
of  Lords  protested  against  a  reversal,  by  the 
English  House  of  Lords,  of  one  of  its  judgments  on 
appeal.  And  the  English  Parliament  passed  an 
Act  in  1719,  depriving  the  Irish  House  of  any 
appellate  jurisdiction,  declaring  that  the  English 
Parliament  "had,  hath,  and  of  right  ought  to  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  make  laws  and  stat 
utes  of  sufficient  power  and  validity  to  bind  the 
people  of  Ireland."1  Here  was  a  definite  state 
ment  of  absolute  power  lodged  in  the  government 
at  the  centre. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem  to-day,  this  historic 

1 6  George  I.,  chapter  v. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    29 

precedent  was  acknowledged  by  all  members  of 
the  Parliamentary  group  in  1766.  They  agreed 
that  the  legislative  power  of  Parliament  was 
absolute.  But  they  did  not  agree  as  to  what  was 
legislation. 

In  this  respect  the  debate  marked  a  departure 
in  English  history.  For  the  first  time  the  distinc 
tion  was  made  between  external  and  internal 
taxation.  The  Sugar  Bill  was  external  taxation. 
The  Stamp  Act  was  internal  taxation.  But  some 
said  taxation  that  had  to  do  with  external  com 
merce  was  not  properly  taxation  but  legislation, 
even  though  one  result  might  be  the  securing  of 
revenue.  Its  underlying  purpose  was  the  regula 
tion  of  commerce.  Internal  taxation  was  not 
properly  legislation,  its  purpose  being  to  raise 
revenue.  Others  and  the  majority,  said,  taxation 
whether  external  or  internal  was  legislation. 
Parliament,  said  those  who  made  the  distinction, 
is  supreme  in  legislation  but  not  in  taxation. 
Parliament,  said  those  who  denied  the  distinction, 
is  supreme  in  all  taxation  because  it  is  legislation. 

Pitt  said: 

It  is  my  opinion  that  this  kingdom  has  no  right  to 
lay  a  tax  upon  the  colonies.  .  .  .  Taxation  is  no 
part  of  the  governing  or  legislative  power.  The 
distinction  between  legislation  and  taxation  is  essen- 


30  Washington  and  Lincoln 

tial  to  liberty.  The  Commons  of  America,  represented 
in  their  several  assemblies,  have  ever  been  in  the 
possession  of  the  exercise  of  this,  their  constitutional 
right  of  giving  and  granting  their  own  money.  They 
would  have  been  slaves  if  they  had  not  enjoyed  it. 
At  the  same  time,  this  kingdom  as  the  supreme  govern 
ing  and  legislative  power,  has  always  bound  the 
colonies  by  her  laws,  by  her  regulations  and  restric 
tions  in  trade,  in  navigation,  in  manufactures,  in 
everything  except  that  of  taking  money  out  of  their 
pockets  without  their  consent.  Here  I  would  draw 
the  line. « 

Grenville  could  not  find  this  distinction.  He 
said: 

I  cannot  understand  the  difference  between  external 
and  internal  taxes.  They  are  the  same  in  effect  and 
differ  only  in  name.  That  this  kingdom  has  the 
sovereign,  the  supreme  legislative  power  over  America 
is  granted ;  it  cannot  be  denied ;  and  taxation  is  a  part 
of  that  sovereign  power.  It  is  one  branch  of  the 
legislation. 2 

In  thjs  Grenville  was  supported  by  Lord  Mansfield 
who  said : 

I  cannot  see  a  real  difference  in  this  distinction; 
for  I  hold  it  to  be  true,  that  a  tax  laid  on  any  place  is 
like  a  pebble  falling  into  and  making  a  circle  in  a  lake, 
till  one  circle  produces  and  gives  motion  to  another, 
and  the  whole  circumference  is  agitated  Jfrom  the 

1  British  Orations,  vol.  i.,  pp.  102,  105.  a  Ibid.,  p.  106. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    31 

centre.  For  nothing  can  be  more  clear  than  that  a 
tax  of  ten  or  twenty  per  cent,  laid  upon  tobacco  either 
in  the  ports  of  Virginia  or  London,  is  a  duty  laid  upon 
the  inland  plantations  of  Virginia,  a  hundred  miles 
from  the  sea,  wheresoever  the  tobacco  grows. I 

And  the  reasoning  of  Mansfield  was  sound. 
Pitt  rested  his  argument  upon  the  supposed 
distinction  in  parliamentary  procedure.  As  he 
says:  "The  taxes  are  a  voluntary  gift  and  grant 
of  the  Commons  alone.  In  legislation  the  three 
estates  of  the  realm  are  alike  concerned;  but  the 
concurrence  of  the  peers  and  the  crown  to  a  tax  is 
only  necessary  to  clothe  it  with  the  form  of  law.  "2 

But  on  a  question  so  momentous,  any  argument 
that  is  based  on  mere  parliamentary  procedure 
carries  its  own  refutation.  The  ministry  was  on 
solid  ground.  A  tax  was  a  tax  whether  laid  on 
foreign  or  domestic  commerce,  and  the  act  which 
authorised  it  was  legislation.  The  colonial  leaders 
saw  this,  although  they  acquiesced  in  the  tax  when 
laid  in  the  guise  of  trade  regulation,  as  a  child  will 
take  its  medicine  if  coated  with  sugar. 

This  led  to  a  second  question, — whence  is 
the  power  lodged  in  government  derived?  The 
answer  given  was  that  the  power  is  derived  from 
the  people  as  represented.  This  answer  seemed 

1  British  Orations,  vol.  i.,  p.  163.  3  Ibid.,  p.  103. 


32  Washington  and  Lincoln 

simple  and  conclusive.  However,  it  is  well  to 
note  the  exact  wording.  The  answer  was  not, 
the  power  is  derived  from  the  people,  but  from  the 
people  as  represented. 

But  what  was  representation?  They  all  agreed 
that  under  the  constitution,  the  government  should 
be  representative.  But  how  much  of  representa 
tion  by  the  people  was  necessary  to  make  the 
government  representative,  was  the  question. 
The  student  cannot  avoid  the  impression  that  the 
statesmen  of  this  period  either  quibbled  in  the 
use  of  words,  or  utterly  lacked  imagination,  in 
their  interpretation  of  the  situation. 

As  in  the  discussion  on  the  lodgment  of  power, 
terms  came  into  use  that  now  have  no  meaning, 
so  in  the  discussion  on  the  source  of  power.  They 
talked  about  virtual  and  actual  representa 
tion.  Some  said,  that  according  to  the  theory 
of  virtual  representation,  all  parts  of  the  empire 
were  represented.  Others  said,  that  inasmuch  as 
the  supposed  representation  was  not  actual,  it 
was  not  real.  From  this  they  argued  that  as 
parts  of  the  empire  were  not  represented,  it  was 
unconstitutional  to  tax  them.  Lord  Camden  said: 

I  will  maintain  to  the  last  hour,  taxation  and 
representation  are  inseparable.  This  position  is 
founded  on  the  law  of  nature.  It  is  more,  it  is  in 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1 765    33 

itself  an  eternal  law  of  nature.  For  whatever  is  a 
man's  own  is  absolutely  his  own.  No  man  has  a 
right  to  take  it  from  him  without  his  own  consent 
either  expressed  by  himself  or  his  own  representation. « 

Mansfield  met  this  emphatic  assertion  by  insisting 
that  virtual  representation  was  in  a  legal  sense 
actual  representation  and,  therefore,  Parliament  in 
laying  taxes  upon  the  colonies  was  acting  within 
the  limits  of  the  constitution.  He  said: 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  but  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  colonies  are  as  much  represented  in  Parliament, 
as  the  greatest  part  of  the  people  of  England  are 
represented;  among  nine  millions  of  whom  there  are 
eight  who  have  no  votes  in  Parliament.  To  what 
purpose,  then,  are  arguments  drawn  from  a  distinction 
in  which  there  is  no  real  difference — of  a  virtual  and 
actual  representation?  A  member  of  Parliament 
chosen  for  any  borough,  represents  not  only  the 
constituents  and  inhabitants  of  that  particular  place 
but  he  represents  the  inhabitants  of  every  other 
borough  in  Great  Britain;  he  represents  the  City  of 
London  and  all  the  other  commons  of  this  land,  and 
the  inhabitants  of  all  the  colonies  and  dominions  of 
Great  Britain,  and  is,  in  duty  and  conscience  bound 
to  take  care  of  their  interests. 2 

Pitt  ridiculed  this  position  by  saying: 

There  is  an  idea  in  some  that  the  colonies  are  vir 
tually  represented  in  the  House.  I  would  fain  know 

1  British  Orations,  vol.  i.,  p.  118.  2  Ibid.,  p.  161. 

3 


34  Washington  and  Lincoln 

by  whom  an  American  is  represented  here.  Is  he 
represented  by  any  knight  of  the  shire,  in  any  county 
in  this  kingdom? — The  idea  of  a  virtual  representa 
tion  in  America  is  the  most  contemptible  idea  that 
ever  entered  into  the  head  of  a  man.  It  does  not 
deserve  a  serious  refutation. T 

When  Pitt  spoke  thus,  he  held  in  his  hand  a 
copy  of  Dulany's  masterly  argument,  in  which 
the  American,  viewing  the  debate  at  a  distance, 
said:  "The  theory  of  virtual  representation  is  a 
mere  cobweb  spread  to  catch  the  unwary  and 
entangle  the  weak."2  And  surely  Pitt  and  Cam- 
den  had  the  stronger  end  of  the  argument.  Mans 
field's  argument  might  be  legally  sound.  But  the 
fundamental  questions  that  concern  the  welfare 
of  the  people  are  not  settled  by  spinning  legal 
cobwebs.  However,  the  English  government 
thought  so,  and  adopted  Mansfield's  position. 

And  now  came  a  third  question,  how  should  the 
power  thus  derived  and  lodged  be  expressed? 
There  were  three  positions  taken.  The  first  was, 
that  Parliament  had  the  right  and  should  exercise 
it.  This  was  the  contention  of  Mansfield  and 
Grenville.  The  second  was,  that  Parliament  had 
not  the  right,  to  the  extent  of  taxing  the  colonies. 

1  British  Orations.,  p.  104. 

3  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  Literary  History  of  American  Revolution, 
vol.  i.,  p.  104. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1 765    35 

Pitt  and  Camden  took  this  position.  The  third 
was,  that  Parliament  had  the  right,  but  under  these 
conditions  should  not  use  it.  Pownall  and  Burke 
best  represented  this  position.  Pownall  said:  "Let 
the  matter  of  right  rest  upon  the  Declaratory 
Law,  and  say  no  more  about  it.  Do  nothing  which 
may  bring  into  discussion  questions  of  right  which 
must  become  mere  articles  of  faith.  "x 

This  was  the  position  which  the  English  minis 
try  finally  took  after  the  failure  of  its  experiments. 
That  is,  it  asserted  the  right,  never  receding  from 
this  position,  of  taxing  the  colonies,  but  doubted 
the  expediency.  However,  through  an  undue 
emphasis  upon  right,  and  a  grudging  acceptance 
of  expediency,  it  created  a  situation  described  by 
Burke  when  he  said: 

Everything  administered  as  remedy  to  the  public 
complaint,  if  it  did  not  produce,  was  followed  by  a 
heightening  of  the  distemper;  until  by  a  variety  of 
experiments,  that  important  country  has  been  brought 
into  her  present  situation — a  situation  which  I  will 
not  miscall,  which  I  dare  not  name,  which  I  scarcely 
know  how  to  comprehend  in  the  terms  of  any 
description. 2 

Attempting  to  handle  the  situation  in  the  spirit 
of  compromise,  and  bungling  in  its  attempt,  the 

1  Hansard's,  Debates,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  506. 
3  Ibid.,  vol.  xviii.,  p.  480. 


36  Washington  and  Lincoln 

government  was  compelled  to  resort  to  force. 
For  compromise  is  a  dangerous  expedient  unless 
used  with  skill.  And  the  conclusion  is  inevitable 
that  the  skill  was  lacking. 

This  lack  of  skill  was  revealed  in  three  courses 
of  action.  First,  the  Declaratory  Act  of  1766, 
following  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  assert 
ing  the  right  to  lay  the  tax.  Second,  the  repeal  of 
the  Townshend  Acts  in  1770,  with  the  retention  of 
the  duty  on  tea  in  order  to  maintain  the  right ;  for 
as  Lord  North  said,  "the  properest  time  to  exert 
our  right  of  taxation  is  when  the  right  is  refused. " ' 
Third,  the  repression  acts  of  1774,  which  included 
the  closing  of  the  Port  of  Boston,  the  remodelling 
of  the  Charter  of  Massachusetts,  and  the  giving 
of  authority  to  the  governors  to  send  those  indicted 
for  certain  crimes,  together  with  the  witnesses,  to 
England  for  trial. 

As  the  student  of  the  period  pictures  the  scene 
in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1775,  with  Edmund 
Burke  delivering  his  magnificent  speech  on  Con 
ciliation,  he  wonders  whether  the  listeners  really 
understand  his  language.  For  it  was  in  this 
speech,  with  the  commoners  in  their  seats,  and 
probably  the  peers  in  attendance,  that  he  said: 
"The  question  with  me  is  not  whether  you  have  a 

1  Hansard's  Debates,  vol.  xvi.,  p.  854. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    37 

right  to  render  your  people  miserable,  but  whether 
it  is  not  your  interest  to  make  them  happy.  It  is 
not  what  a  lawyer  tells  me  I  may  do,  but  what 
humanity,  reason,  and  justice  tell  me  I  ought  to 
do."1  That  the  spirit  of  the  great  orator's  lan 
guage  had  no  meaning  for  those  in  power,  is 
evident  when  it  is  remembered  that  at  the  con 
clusion  of  his  speech,  Burke  offered  the  first  of 
six  resolutions  on  conciliation,  only  to  have  it 
lost  by  the  overwhelming  vote  of  78  to  240. 2 

Compromise  in  its  noble  sense,  at  this  period 
was  a  lost  art.  And  following  this  speech  came 
force,  first  on  the  green  at  Lexington,  then  on  the 
hill  at  Charlestown,  and  finally  on  a  hundred 
battlefields  in  the  colonies.  The  answer  to  the 
question  as  to  the  expression  of  power  was,  through 
compromise  if  possible,  by  force  when  necessary. 
But  the  use  of  one,  and  the  execution  of  the  other 
were  defective. 

This  led  to  a  fourth  question, — what  was  the 
abuse  of  power?  Of  course,  the  ministry  would 
have  said  there  was  no  abuse  of  power.  But  with 
such  master  minds  in  Parliament  as  Pitt,  Camden, 
Burke,  Mansfield,  and  Pownall,  how  came  it  that 
the  expression  of  power  was  so  imperfect?  There 
can  be  but  one  answer,  namely,  George  the  Third. 

1  Hansard's  Debates,  vol.  xviii.,  p.  506.  a  Ibid.,  p.  541. 


38  Washington  and  Lincoln 

It  is  not  necessary  to  read  the  fiery  denuncia 
tions  of  the  American  patriots  in  order  to  reach 
this  conclusion.  Lecky,  who  certainly  cannot  be 
accused  of  any  prejudice  for  the  American  cause, 
sums  up  his  study  of  this  period  by  saying  of  the 
King:  "He  spent  a  long  life  in  obstinately  resist 
ing  measures  which  are  now  almost  universally 
admitted  to  have  been  good,  and  in  supporting 
measures  which  are  as  universally  admitted  to 
have  been  bad."1  Thackeray  says:  "Our  chief 
troubles  began  when  we  got  a  king  who  gloried  in 
the  name  of  Britain,  and  being  born  in  the  country, 
proposed  to  rule  it.  "2  David  Hume  in  one  of  his 
last  letters,  prophesied  that,  if  the  Court  carried 
the  day  in  America  the  English  constitution 
would  infallibly  perish.3 

The  evidence  is  unmistakable,  that  George 
the  Third  increasingly  shaped  the  policy  of  the 
government,  from  the  overthrow  of  Pitt  in  1763, 
until  the  colonies  were  lost  with  the  signing  of  the 
treaty  in  1783.  At  the  time  of  his  coronation  his 
mother  remarked,  "  George,  be  king. " 4  He  accep 
ted  the  advice,  and  proceeded  to  rule  not  through 

1  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  iii., 
p.  171-  2  Thackeray,  Four  Georges,  p.  39. 

3  Trevelyan,  American  Revolution,  vol.  ii.,  part  2,  p.  156. 

4  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  Eighteenth  Century ',  vol.  iii., 
p.  168. 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    39 

the  judgment  of  his  ministers,  but  by  using  his 
ministers  for  the  expression  of  his  own  judgment. 

There  are,  however,  some  things  to  be  said  in 
favour  of  the  King.  One  is,  that  at  this  time  every 
throne  in  Europe  rested  upon  the  conception  of 
absolute  power  residing  in  the  sovereign.  Another 
is,  that  the  tendency  in  England  for  half  a  century 
had  been  in  the  direction  of  a  centralised  power. 
This  tendency  was  seen  first  in  the  enormous 
influence  wielded  by  the  Whig  families,  an  in 
fluence  against  democracy  and  in  favour  of  aris 
tocracy.  Then  it  was  seen  in  the  breaking  down 
of  the  Whigs,  and  the  return  to  power  of  the 
Tories.  With  the  return  of  the  Tory  party  came 
the  old  doctrine,  that  the  King  ruled  not  under 
the  limitation  of  the  constitution  as  defined  by 
Parliament,  but  by  divine  right.  And  as  if  to 
encourage  the  King  in  his  thirst  for  power,  Black- 
stone  claimed  for  him  this  right  when  he  said: 
"The  King  of  England  is  not  only  the  chief,  but 
properly  the  sole  magistrate  of  the  nation,  all 
others  acting  by  commission  from  and  in  due 
subordination  to  him."1 

Perhaps  the  great  jurist  intended  such  language 
to  be  a  theoretical  description  of  an  ideal  condi 
tion,  but  the  King  accepted  the  words  literally. 

1  Lecky ,  History  of  England  in  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  iii.,  p.  1 74. 


40  Washington  and  Lincoln 

Such  advice  was  dangerous  for  a  king  of  the  type 
of  George  the  Third,  for  possessing  more  will 
power  than  mental  acumen,  he  was  ever  ready  to 
insist  upon  his  rights.  He  also  possessed  that 
most  dangerous  combination,  of  being  corrupt 
in  public  life,  while  above  reproach  in  private 
life.  Through  his  willingness  to  use  unworthy 
means  for  what  he  held  to  be  the  public  good, 
he  assembled  a  large  following  in  Parliament. 
For  example,  it  is  said  that  in  1770  there  were 
192  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  who 
also  held  positions  under  the  government  at  the 
disposal  of  the  King. x 

It  is  such  a  fact  as  this,  together  with  his  known 
interference  with  legislation,  which  gives  warrant 
to  the  statement,  that  George  the  Third  was  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  American  Revolution. 
It  is  in  the  light  of  such  conditions  that  the  mean 
ing  of  Pitt's  remark  is  made  clear  when  he  said 
he  would  return  to  St.  James  if  he  could  take  the 
Constitution  with  him.  The  King  was  unwilling. 
He  was  not  a  tyrant,  as  many  across  the  sea 
supposed,  nor  was  he  a  selfish  ruler,  bent  upon 
advancing  his  own  interests  at  the  expense  of  the 
people.  Viewed  in  the  long  stretch  of  English 
history,  he  stands  forth  as  a  sovereign,  who, 

1  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  iii., 


The  Parliamentary  Group  of  1765    41 

believing  himself  superior  to  Parliament,  resisted 
constitutional  development.  He  was  like  the 
huge  rock  in  a  stream  against  which  the  current 
breaks,  and  in  breaking  forms  a  counter  current. 
In  this  counter  current  the  colonies  were  swept 
away,  though  in  the  stronger  current,  constitu 
tional  development  was  to  move  forward  to  the 
greater  British  Empire  of  to-day. 

To  summarise  then  the  movement  of  the  period. 
It  began  with  the  emergence  of  empire  as  seen  in 
the  treaty  of  1763.  This  called  for  an  extension 
of  the  system  of  imperial  control,  which  included 
a  strengthening  of  the  military  defence  in  distant 
parts.  This  meant  a  shift  of  emphasis  in  the 
colonial  policy  from  the  commercial  to  the  politi 
cal.  In  making  this  shift,  the  mighty  question 
of  power  in  government  suddenly  came  into  view, 
bringing  with  it  the  consideration  of  the  lodgment, 
source,  expression,  and  abuse  of  power.  The 
answers  given  were  such  as  to  add  significance  to 
Turgot's  remark:  "Wise  and  happy  will  be  that 
nation  the  first  to  bend  its  policy  to  the  new  cir 
cumstances,  to  see  in  its  colonies  only  allied 
provinces,  and  no  longer  subject  to  the  mother- 
country."1 

1  Stephens,  Life  and  Writings  of  Turgot,  p.  322. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776 

IN  one  of  the  big,  buff -coloured  volumes  of  the 
Library  of  Congress,  entitled,  Journals  of  the 
Continental  Congress,  is  the  following  entry,  under 
date  of  August  2,  1776:  "The  declaration  of  inde 
pendence  being  engrossed  and  compared  at  the 
table  was  signed."1  This  entry  constitutes  the 
period  at  the  end  of  the  legislative  sentence, 
formed  by  the  grouping  of  the  preceding  entries; 
and  which  entries  thus  grouped,  spell  out  the 
independence  of  the  colonies.  The  formal  state 
ment  is: 

We,  therefore,  the  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  General  Congress  assembled, 
appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  World,  for 
the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  Do,  in  the  Name,  and 
by  the  Authority  of  the  good  People  of  these  Colonies, 
solemnly  publish  and  declare  that  these  united  Colon 
ies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  Free  and  Independent 
States. 

If  the  reports  which  have  been  handed  down  are 
reliable,  the  delegates  as  they  gathered  about  the 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  v.,  p.  626. 
42 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    43 

table  on  this  August  day,  were  in  a  light-hearted 
mood.  The  President  as  he  scrawled  his  name 
remarked,  that  he  wrote  his  name  thus  large  "that 
King  George  might  read  it  without  spectacles. " 
A  man  whose  name  is  unknown,  and  who  was 
uneasy,  because  of  this  unseemly  facetiousness, 
soberly  suggested  that  they  must  all  hang  together. 
This  was  too  much  for  the  genial  old  wit  of  the 
company  who  replied,  that  "unless  we  all  hang 
together  we  must  all  hang  separately."1  Later, 
the  corpulent  member  from  Virginia  followed  the 
lead  suggested,  and  said  to  a  lean  member  from 
Massachusetts,  "I  shall  have  the  advantage  over 
you,  for  my  neck  probably  will  be  broken  at  the 
first  drop,  whereas  you  may  have  to  dangle  for 
half  an  hour."2 

It  may  seem  incongruous  that  these  men  should 
indulge  in  such  trifling  talk  as  they  sign  their 
names  to  a  document  that  closes  with  these 
words:  "And  for  the  support  of  this  Declaration, 
with  a  firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  Divine 
Providence,  we  mutually  pledge  each  other  our 
Lives,  our  Fortunes,  and  our  Sacred  Honour." 
But  nature  knows  about  this.  The  great  moments 

1  Jefferson  states  that  Franklin  would  have  been  asked  to 
write  the  Declaration,  but  for  the  fear  that  he  would  insert  a 
joke.  See  Writings  of  Franklin,  Smythe  Ed.,  vol.  i.f  p.  166. 

a  Hosmer's  Life  of  Samuel  Adams,  p.  349. 


44  Washington  and  Lincoln 

in  history  are  usually  relieved  by  the  lighter 
touches.  And  as  the  deep  heaving  billows  in  the 
violent  storm,  toss  from  their  crests  the  flecks 
of  foam,  so  from  the  surface  of  minds,  in  the  depths 
of  which  are  profound  and  serious  convictions, 
this  persiflage  is  thrown. 

But  who  were  the  men  who  signed  their  names, 
and  pledged  their  lives,  fortunes,  and  honour? 
An  examination  of  the  engrossed  copy  of  the  ori 
ginal  Declaration  now  in  the  keeping  of  the  State 
Department  at  the  national  capitol,  shows  fifty- 
six  names,  spread  over  the  paper  in  five  columns. 
In  one  of  the  columns  is  the  name  of  Samuel 
Adams,  the  man  of  the  town  meeting,  who  through 
adroit  management  and  superb  agitation,  led  the 
forces  of  democracy.  Below  is  that  of  John 
Adams,  his  younger  cousin,  the  Atlas  of  inde 
pendence,  who,  having  more  learning  than  his 
relative,  exercised  less  influence.  Another  name 
is  that  of  John  Witherspoon,  the  college  president, 
who  by  his  presence  in  this  Congress,  gave  cur 
rency  to  the  expression — the  scholar  in  politics. 
Not  far  removed  is  the  name  of  Francis  Hopkinson, 
who  was  an  enigma  to  many,  because  on  the  sur 
face  he  seemed  a  conservative  gentleman  from 
England,  while  in  fundamental  conviction  he  was 
in  sympathy  with  the  colonies.  And  then  the 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    45 

name  of  the  then  most  famous  man  in  the  colonies, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  the  printer,  scientist,  philo 
sopher,  statesman,  and  diplomat.  In  another 
column  is  the  name  of  George  Wythe,  the  great 
lawyer  and  equally  great  teacher  of  great  lawyers, 
who,  in  signing  this  paper,  gave  assent  to  a  docu 
ment  prepared  by  one  of  his  students.  Separated 
by  several  names  as  if  to  suggest  that  he  is  no 
longer  a  pupil,  is  that  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  the 
man  whose  mind  seemed  not  well  poised  in  debate, 
but  from  whose  pen  could  flow  the  thoughts  of  a 
continent.  And  finally  the  name  of  Edward  Rut- 
ledge,  the  youngest  deputy  in  the  Assembly, 
described  in  one  of  the  crisp  Braintree  letters,  as 
"too  talkative/'1  but  pronounced  by  one  best 
qualified  to  judge,  "the  finest  orator  of  the  com 
pany."2 

To  these  names  should  be  added  others  not  found 
at  the  end  of  the  engrossed  copy  of  the  Declara 
tion,  for  this  movement  was  larger  than  the  hall, 
with  its  ink  bottle  and  quill  on  the  table,  and  the 
men  gathered  about  it.  The  name  of  John  Jay, 
who  later  became  the  first  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  is  missing,  because  not  receiving 
instructions  from  his  colony  in  time,  he  lacked 

1  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  369,  401. 

3  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  440. 


46  Washington  and  Lincoln 

authority  to  sign  his  name.1  And  the  name  of 
John  Dickinson,  the  penman  of  the  Revolution, 
is  not  in  the  list.  He  was  in  agreement  with  the 
delegates,  as  regards  the  justice  and  ultimate  need 
of  independence,  but  on  grounds  of  expediency, 
doubted  the  wisdom  of  a  declaration  at  this  time. 2 
The  signature  of  Patrick  Henry,  "who  spoke  as 
Homer  wrote, "  is  not  here.  However,  the  absence 
of  his  name  means  more  than  its  presence  would 
have  meant,  for  it  reminds  us  of  the  fact  sometimes 
forgotten,  that  the  struggle  for  independence  was 
as  important  in  the  colonies  forming  the  Union, 
as  in  the  union  formed  by  the  colonies.  And  in 
this  year  he  was  leading  the  progressive  forces  of 
his  State  in  the  adoption  of  its  constitution. 

And  one  more  name,  that  of  Washington.  If 
any  evidence  were  needed  to  prove  that  the 
Revolutionary  movement  in  its  representative 
aspect,  was  larger  than  the  names  attached  to  the 
document,  that  evidence  is  furnished  by  the 
absence  of  his  name.  Washington  had  been  a 
member  of  the  Congress,  and  Patrick  Henry,  so 
unlike  him  in  many  respects  said,  "In  solid  infor 
mation  and  sound  judgment  he  was  the  first  man 
in  the  Congress."3  But  the  time  had  come  to 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  vi.,  p.  1092.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1087. 

a  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  440. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    47 

leave  the  Congress.  He  was  among  the  first  to 
perceive  the  military  aspect  of  the  struggle.  He 
understood  that  the  realisation  of  independence 
whether  within  or  without  the  empire,  meant  more 
than  agitation  and  legislative  enactment.  The 
mind  of  the  reader  to-day  is  hushed,  as  one  of 
the  intimate  letters  of  this  simple  and  modest 
man  is  read,  closing  with  the  words,  "It  is  my 
intention  to  devote  my  life  and  fortune  to  the 
cause  we  are  engaged  in  if  needful."1  In  the 
Second  Congress  he  appeared  in  the  famous  blue 
uniform  with  the  buff  trimmings  of  a  colonel,  and 
as  another  finely  says,  "thereby  unconsciously 
nominated  himself  for  the  command  of  the  Army." 2 
And  the  members  of  the  Congress  so  understand 
ing  it,  elected  him  commander-in-chief  on  June 
1 5th  of  the  same  year.3  After  making  his  only 
recorded  speech  in  the  Congress,  he  left  Phila 
delphia  and  joined  the  little  army  at  Boston. 
And  on  this  summer  day  in  1776,  while  the  dele 
gates  are  signing  their  names  to  the  Declaration, 
he  is  yonder  at  New  York,  watching  with  brave 
and  anxious  heart,  the  ships  of  the  British  squad 
ron,  as  they  tug  at  the  anchors  off  Staten  Island. 4 

lWritings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.f  p.  464.  3  Ibid.,  p.  477. 

3  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  91,  92. 

4  The  mythical  tendency  in  history  has  shown  itself  in  the 
story  of  the  signing  of  the  Declaration.     A  corrective  for  this 


48  Washington  and  Lincoln 

Surely  if  ever  a  man  in  history  was  able  to  prove 
a  glorious  alibi,  that  man  was  Washington.  And 
it  was  more  than  an  alibi,  for  Washington  at  New 
York,  in  this  crisis,  was  the  extension  to  the  field 
of  battle  of  the  Continental  Congress.  He, 
with  the  army  under  him,  was  trying  to  do  what 
the  Congress  was  trying  to  say.  And  it  is  no 
mere  rhetorical  flourish  to  suggest,  that  if  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  written  on  parch 
ment,  it  was  framed  with  bayonets  and  nailed 
with  shot.1 

These  are  the  men  who  formed  the  Revolutionary 
group  of  1776,  with  Washington  as  the  command 
ing  personality.  A  group  to  whom  Chatham  paid 
the  following  tribute  when  he  said: 

tendency  is  found  in  reading  Friedenwald's  The  Declaration  of 
Independence.  However,  the  student  feels  some  sympathy  for 
this  tendency  as  he  recalls  Samuel  Johnson's  words:  "There  are 
inexcusable  lies,  and  consecrated  lies.  For  instance  we  are  told 
that  on  the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  unfortunate  battle  of 
Fontenoy,  every  heart  beat,  and  every  eye  was  in  tears.  Now 
we  know  no  man  eat  his  dinner  the  worse,  but  there  should  have 
been  all  this  concern;  and  to  say  there  was,  may  be  reckoned  a 
consecrated  lie. "  BoswelTs  Johnson,  vol.  ii.,  p.  218. 

1  The  measure  of  Washington's  influence  on  Congress,  in  the 
days  immediately  preceding  the  issuance  of  the  Declaration  will 
never  be  taken.  Washington  Irving  seems  to  imply  that  it 
was  greater  than  is  supposed  by  writers  to-day.  He  quotes 
General  Lee  as  writing  Washington:  "I  am  extremely  glad, 
dear  general,  that  you  are  in  Philadelphia,  for  their  counsels 
sometimes  lack  a  little  military  electricity."  living's  Life  of 
Washingtont  vol.  ii.,  p.  208. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    49 

For  myself  I  must  declare  that  in  all  my  reading 
and  observation — and  history  has  been  my  favourite 
study;  I  have  read  Thucydides,  and  have  studied 
and  admired  the  master  states  of  the  world — that  for 
solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom 
of  conclusion,  under  such  a  complication  of  difficult 
circumstances,  no  nation  or  body  of  men  can  stand  in 
preference  to  the  General  Congress  at  Philadelphia.1 

It  was  a  diversified  group.  In  experience, 
ability,  and  temperament,  its  members  varied.  It 
is  a  long  distance  from  Sam  Adams,  fitted  out 
with  a  new  suit  of  clothes  by  his  neighbours  in 
Boston,  that  he  might  make  a  respectable  appear 
ance  at  the  First  Congress,  to  Francis  Hopkinson, 
the  polished  gentleman  receiving  from  Europe 
the  latest  importations  of  books.  And  the  transi 
tion  is  rather  sudden  from  the  young,  impulsive, 
and  inexperienced  Ned  Rutledge,  not  yet  thirty, 
to  the  sagacious,  long-headed  Ben  Franklin  in  his 
seventieth  year.  However,  as  bits  of  glass  in  a 
kaleidoscope,  of  varying  shapes,  sizes,  and  colours, 
when  shaken  together,  make  a  perfect  picture,  so 
these  men  combining  their  differences,  produced 
the  glorious  formation  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence. 

And  in  the  Declaration  as  thus  written  with  pen 
and  sword,  the  Revolutionary  leaders  with  Wash- 

1  Hansard's  Debates,  vol.  xviii.,  p.  155. 

4 


50  Washington  and  Lincoln 

ington  as  the  commanding  figure  are  seen  in  the 
attitude  of  protest.  The  group  in  this  period  is 
not  concerned  primarily  with  a  statement  of 
government  as  it  should  be,  but  with  a  protest 
against  government  as  it  is.  This  means,  that 
being  a  protest,  it  does  not  contain  a  clear  state 
ment  of  the  political  philosophy  of  the  period. 
This  philosophy  is  set  forth  in  the  formal  addresses 
issued  to  the  inhabitants  in  different  parts  of  the 
empire,  by  the  Congress  in  the  preceding  months, 
and  better  still,  in  the  constitutions  as  adopted  by 
the  States  in  the  following  months. 

The  leaders  in  the  Declaration  take  an  attitude 
in  opposition  to  that  taken  by  the  Parliamentary 
leaders  in  1765.  The  one  word  of  the  English 
leaders  in  their  task  of  empire  was,  unification. 
The  one  word  of  the  American  leaders  in  their 
document  of  protest  is,  separation.  This  protest 
through  separation  was  called  forth  by  the  con 
ception  of  power  as  advanced  by  the  Parliamentary 
leaders  in  their  attempt  at  unification.  And  so 
the  Revolutionary  leaders  say:  "When  a  long 
train  of  abuses  and  usurpations,  pursuing  invari 
ably  the  same  object,  evinces  the  same  design  to 
reduce  them  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is  their 
right,  it  is  their  duty  to  throw  off  such  govern 
ment."  And,  as  was  noted  in  the  preceding 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    51 

chapter,  in  trying  to  solve  the  problem  of  power 
in  government  for  the  unification  of  empire,  the 
question  of  its  lodgment  arose.  The  English 
leaders,  in  the  Declaratory  Act  passed  in  connec 
tion  with  the  withdrawal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and 
in  the  retention  of  the  duty  on  tea  after  the 
Townshend  Acts  had  become  inoperative,  main 
tained  that  in  Parliament  was  lodged  absolute 
power  to  legislate  for  the  colonies  in  all  matters 
whatsoever.  In  protesting  against  this  theory  of 
power  as  lodged,  the  Revolutionary  leaders  go  back 
of  the  ministerial  leaders  in  Parliament  to  the  King, 
by  whom  they  were  controlled,  and  say:  "He 
has  combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a  juris 
diction  foreign  to  our  Constitutions,  and  unac 
knowledged  by  our  laws;  giving  his  assent  to  their 
acts  of  pretended  legislation. "  They  maintained 
that  in  the  distribution  of  power  in  the  empire, 
their  legislatures  were  co-ordinate  in  power  with 
that  of  Parliament. 

This  brought  them,  in  the  protest,  to  the 
question  of  the  source  of  power.  The  English 
contention  was  that  as  all  parts  of  the  empire  were 
represented,  the  Parliament,  being  imperial  in 
representation,  was  therefore  imperial  in  power. 
The  colonies  insisted  that  their  legislatures  were 
co-ordinate  in  power,  because  of  necessity,  except 


52  Washington  and  Lincoln 

by  a  legal  fiction,  the  colonies  could  not  be  repre 
sented  in  Parliament.  And  so,  they  said,  the 
attempt  of  the  English  ministry  to  legislate  for 
the  colonies  in  "all  matters  whatsoever,"  was 
unconstitutional,  They  ignore  the  terms  used  in 
1765,  such  as  internal  and  external  taxation,  and 
virtual  and  actual  representation,  and  take  a 
position  not  only  against  taxation  without  repre 
sentation,  but  also,  legislation  without  represen 
tation.  They  protest  against  "the  placing  of 
standing  armies  without  the  consent  of  our 
legislatures,"  and  of  "taxation  without  our  con 
sent." 

These  questions  of  power  as  lodged  and  derived, 
led  to  the  third  and  more  pressing  question  of 
expression.  For  the  important  consideration  in 
a  period  of  protest  is,  how  shall  the  power  claimed 
by  those  protesting  be  expressed.  They,  like  the 
Parliamentary  group,  answered  this  question  by 
saying,  first,  through  compromise  if  possible. 
However,  the  colonies  during  this  period  were  as 
defective  in  the  art  of  compromise,  as  was  the 
home  government.  The  fact  is,  any  period  in 
which  the  main  emphasis  is  placed  upon  "rights," 
as  distinct  from  what  is  right,  is  not  one  for  the 
exercise  of  this  constructive  and  noble  spirit. 
It  might  perhaps  be  shown  that  the  Revolutionary 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    53 

leaders  were  disposed  to  grant  at  the  beginning  of 
the  period,  that  which  later,  under  compelling 
circumstances,  they  refused  to  grant;  even  as 
later  in  the  period  the  Parliamentary  leaders  were 
disposed  to  grant  that  which  earlier  in  the  period 
they  refused.  The  Revolutionary  leaders  hint  at 
this  when  they  say:  "Such  has  been  the  patient 
sufferance  of  these  colonies."  But  probably  no 
nearer  approach  to  compromise  during  the  period 
is  found  than  in  the  Declaration  itself.  A  com 
parison  of  the  draft  reported  by  Jefferson,  with 
the  draft  amended  and  finally  adopted  by  the 
Congress,  indicates  a  tendency  in  this  direction. 
Two  paragraphs  in  Jefferson's  copy,  the  one 
censuring  the  English  people,  and  the  other 
against  slavery,  were  stricken  out  entirely. I  Even 
these  suggestions  of  compromise  are  qualified, 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  first  paragraph 
was  omitted  in  order  to  strengthen  the  argument, 
and  the  second  that  there  might  be  unity  of  action 
and  thus  a  united  front. 

It  was  during  the  debate  over  these  paragraphs, 
and  while  Jefferson  listened  uneasily  to  the  criti 
cisms  of  his  carefully  worded  sentences,  that 
Franklin  told  him  the  famous  story  about  the 
hatter: 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  vi.,  p.  491. 


54  Washington  and  Lincoln 

When  I  was  a  young  journeyman  printer,  one  of  my 
companions,  an  apprentice  hatter,  having  served  out 
his  time,  was  about  to  open  shop  for  himself.  His 
first  concern  was  to  have  a  handsome  sign  board, 
with  a  proper  inscription.  He  composed  it  in  these 
words,  "John  Thompson,  Hatter,  makes  and  sells 
hats  for  ready  money,"  with  the  figure  of  a  hat 
subjoined;  but  he  thought  he  would  submit  it  to  his 
friends  for  their  approval.  The  first  he  showed  it  to 
thought  the  word  "Hatter"  tautologous,  because 
followed  by  the  words  "makes  hats, "  which  showed  he 
was  a  hatter.  It  was  struck  out.  The  next  observed 
that  the  word  "makes"  might  as  well  be  omitted, 
because  his  customers  would  not  care  who  made  the 
hats;  if  good  and  to  their  mind  they  would  buy  by 
whomsoever  made.  He  struck  it  out.  A  third  said 
he  thought  the  words  "for  ready  money  "  were  useless, 
as  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  place  to  sell  on  credit ; 
every  one  who  purchased  expected  to  pay.  They 
were  parted  with  and  the  inscription  now  stood, 
"John  Thompson  sells  hats."  "Sells  hats?"  says 
his  next  friend,  "why  nobody  will  expect  you  to  give 
them  away;  and  what  is  the  use  of  that  word?"  It 
was  stricken  out,  and  hats  followed  it,  the  rather  as 
there  was  one  printed  on  the  board.  So  the  inscrip 
tion  was  reduced  ultimately  to  "John  Thompson" 
with  the  figure  of  a  hat  subjoined.1 

;If  the  first  answer  of  power  through  compromise 
was  ineffectual,  then  the  second  answer  by  force 
became  necessary.  Force  did  not  follow  in  order 

1  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Smythe  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  32. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776     55 

to  make  effective  the  announcement  of  separation. 
But  force  having  been  used  in  making  the  protest, 
and  having  failed,  separation  as  a  last  resort  was 
declared.  However,  were  the  colonies  justified 
in  using  force  while  remaining  within  the  empire? 
The  answer  of  the  Revolutionary  group  was,  Yes, 
and  so  they  say :  "When  any  form  of  government 
becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right 
of  the  people  to  alter  or  abolish  it. "  In  making 
this  assertion,  they  were  clearly  within  the  mean 
ing  of  the  English  constitution.  These  men  had 
not  forgotten  the  history  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury  in  the  mother-country.  And  more  than  this, 
they  had  studied  the  liberty  documents,  and  knew 
that  in  the  Great  Charter,  there  was  a  clause  to 
the  effect  that  when  the  King  exceeds  his  duty, 
the  people  may  seize  his  castles  and  oppose  his 
arms.1 

This  led  to  a  fourth  question, — namely,  what 
constituted  the  abuse  of  power  in  government? 
The  leaders  believed  that  this  abuse  was  in  the 
person  of  King  George.  They  doubtless  exag 
gerated  this,  and  the  reader  should  not  forget 
that  the  leaders,  in  omitting  all  mention  of  Par 
liament,  and  holding  the  King  responsible  for  the 
acts  of  government  in  the  colonies,  had  an  argu- 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  vi.,  p.  1076. 


56  Washington  and  Lincoln 

mentative  object  in  mind.  They  had  finally 
reached  the  only  logical  position,  that  the  colonies 
were  a  part  of  the  empire,  not  through  Parliament, 
but  through  the  Crown.  If  this  were  true,  in 
protesting  against  the  acts  of  government,  they 
must  make  their  protest  to  and  against  the  Crown. 
But  back  of  this  argumentative  maneuvering  for 
position  was  a  real  protest  against  King  George. 
They  believed  that  in  his  extreme  use  of  prerog 
ative,  based  upon  the  Tory  theory  of  the  divine 
right  of  the  king  to  rule,  there  was  a  tendency 
away  from  constitutional  government,  and  this 
if  persisted  in,  would  destroy  free  institutions. 
So  they  speak  of  "a  Prince  whose  character  is 
thus  marked  by  every  act  which  may  define  a 
tyrant/'  and  who,  "is  unfit  to  be  the  ruler  of  a 
free  people."  He,  the  personal  king,  was  the 
abuse  of  power.  In  this  they  were  in  agreement 
with  a  conspicuous  minority  of  English  leaders. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  then,  is  a  reve 
lation  of  Washington  and  the  Revolutionary  group 
of  1776  in  the  attitude  of  protest,  against  the 
conception  of  power  in  government  as  lodged, 
derived,  expressed,  and  abused,  as  held  by  the 
Parliamentary  group  of  1765. 

But  at  this  point,  the  student  needs  to  be  on  his 
guard,  lest  he  assume  that  in  this  great  document 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776     57 

is  found  an  explanation  of  the  era.  The  saying, 
"no  documents,  no  history,"  may  be  true.  But 
another  saying,  "no  history,  no  documents,"  is 
also  true.  For  documents  are  never  the  causes, 
but  the  effects  of  historic  movements.  And  this 
document  was  but  the  culminating  effect  of  causes 
that  were  fundamental  in  colonial  life,  and  which 
made  inevitable  the  protest  against  the  English 
conception  of  power.  What  were  these  causes? 
The  answer  to  this  question  is  best  found  in  the 
little  pamphlet  by  Thomas  Paine,  entitled  "  Com 
mon  Sense"1  This  pamphlet  of  less  than  half  a 
hundred  pages,  is  of  peculiar  value  in  that  it  gives 
a  well-nigh  perfect  picture  of  the  influence  upon 
the  popular  mind  of  conditions  that  were  inherent 
in  the  situation.  By  a  clever  play  upon  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  of  the  people,  through  a 
description  of  the  existing  conditions,  Paine  sud 
denly  became  a  mighty  force  in  the  crisis.  He 
wrote  the  pamphlet  in  January,  1776,  and  within 


1  Thomas  Paine  has  only  in  recent  years  come  into  his  own, 
thanks  to  the  thorough  investigations  of  Moncure  D.  Con  way, 
who  has  written  his  life  and  edited  his  works.  For  some  reason, 
the  early  biographies  of  Paine  were  written,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  interpreting  but  discrediting  him.  The  man  who  received 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  as  a  caller,  and  heard  the  great  emperor 
say  that  he  slept  nightly  with  a  copy  of  his  writings  under  his 
pillow,  must  have  been  more  of  a  man  than  Chalmers  and  Cheet- 
ham  would  have  the  world  believe. 


58  Washington  and  Lincoln 

a  few  weeks  it  reached  the  enormous  sale  of  over 
one  hundred  thousand  copies.1  And  it  is  no 
exaggeration  to  say,  that,  judged  by  the  swiftness 
and  intensity  of  its  influence,  it  is  the  most  re 
markable  achievement  in  the  history  of  literature. 
No  less  an  authority  than  the  superb  agitator 
Sam  Adams  said:  "It  unquestionably  awakened 
the  public  mind  and  led  the  people  loudly  to  call 
for  declaration  of  our  national  independence."2 

It  is  true  the  argument  lacks  balance,  and  is 
expressed  in  exaggerated  language.  The  state 
ment  of  the  compact  theory  is  also  in  terms  of 
simplicity  which  are  doubtless  contrary  to  fact. 
Yet  the  critic  of  this  pamphlet  to-day  needs  to 
exercise  some  modesty,  as  he  remembers  that  the 
words,  "by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  are 
as  true  in  pamphleteering  as  in  conduct.  And 
further,  as  he  recalls  the  fact,  that,  Washington 
among  the  first  to  read  the  pamphlet,  wrote  to  a 
friend,  "the  sound  argument  and  unanswerable 
reasoning  contained  in  the  pamphlet,  'Common 
Sense/  will  not  leave  numbers  at  a  loss  to  decide 
upon  the  propriety  of  separation."3  Let  us 
turn  then  the  pages  of  this  famous  little  work  to 

1  Con  way,  Thomas  Paine,  vol.  i.,  p.  69. 

*  Writings  of  Samuel  Adams,  Gushing  Ed.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  412. 

3  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  396. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776     59 

find  by  suggestion  an  enumeration  of  the  con 
ditions  which  give  meaning  to  the  protest  of  the 
Revolutionary  group. 

First,  there  was  the  sense  of  vastness.  The 
French  War,  ending  in  the  treaty  of  Paris  in  1763, 
removed  geographical  barriers.  The  colonies  in 
helping  to  remove  the  barriers,  caught  a  view  of 
the  continent,  and  after  the  barriers  were  removed, 
the  view  as  caught,  was  heightened.  Only  the 
fringe  of  the  continent  was  settled,  and  vast 
portions  were  unexplored,  but  it  was  there,  and  the 
hostile  limitations  were  gone.  Settlers  began  to 
move  down  the  Mohawk  Valley,  and  over  the 
Alleghany  Mountains.  The  great  ocean,  winding 
streams,  dark  forests,  towering  mountains,  inland 
lakes,  and  rolling  prairies,  influenced  their  think 
ing,  and  caused  them  to  feel  the  touch  of  destiny. 
The  credentials  issued  to  members  of  the  First 
Congress,  speak  of  the  "Continent  of  North 
America."  The  Congress  these  members  attend 
is  the  "Continental"  Congress.  The  army  au 
thorised  by  the  Congress,  is  the  "Continental" 
Army. 

And  Washington,  as  no  other  member  of  the 
Revolutionary  group,  perhaps  embodied  this  sense 
of  vastness.  His  early  experience  had  led  him  over 
the  mountains.  His  later  plans  called  for  huge 


60          Washington  and  Lincoln 

land  developments  on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio.  And 
even  the  thought  of  his  great  plantation  caused 
him  to  stand  forth  as  the  man  of  a  continent. 
Paine,  understanding  the  grip  that  this  sense  of 
vastness  had  upon  the  mind  of  the  people,  says: 
1  'T  is  not  the  affair  of  a  city,  a  county,  a  province, 
a  kingdom,  but  of  a  continent — of  at  least  one 
eighth  part  of  the  habitable  globe.  "'  And  again, 
"  There  is  something  absurd  in  supposing  a  conti 
nent  to  be  perpetually  governed  by  an  island.  In 
no  instance  hath  nature  made  the  satellite  larger 
than  the  primary  planet."2  The  colonies  with 
the  vast  area,  unlimited  resources,  and  increasing 
population,  felt  that  it  was  not  right  that  an  island 
should  rule  a  continent.  And  Paine  appealed  to 
this  feeling. 

Second,  there  was  the  fact  of  distance.  The 
colonies  were  far  away  from  the  mother  country. 
The  Atlantic  Ocean  was  many  times  larger  in  the 
eighteenth  century  than  it  is  in  the  twentieth 
century.  This  fact  had  its  influence  in  the  great 
struggle.  It  meant  that  few  crossed  the  ocean. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  only  one  member  of 
the  Parliamentary  group  had  ever  visited  America, 
and  only  one  member  of  the  Revolutionary  group 

1  Writings  of  Thomas  Paine,  Conway  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  84. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  92. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    61 

had  ever  visited  England.  And  the  result  of 
this  geographical  separation  was  seen  in  three 
directions. 

First,  the  English  leaders  in  attempting  to 
extend  the  system  of  imperial  control,  failed  to 
understand  the  conditions  in  the  colonies.  Had 
Mansfield  spent  a  few  weeks  in  America,  he  would 
never  have  closed  one  of  his  memorable  speeches 
by  saying  with  easy  composure,  "God  bless  this 
industrious,  frugal,  and  well-meaning,  but  easily 
deluded  people."1 

Second,  it  was  seen  in  the  failure  to  make  effec 
tive  this  system  of  control.  Doubtless  the  strain 
would  have  been  relieved  had  the  colonies  been 
represented  in  Parliament.  This  point  the  English 
leaders  would  have  yielded.  But  was  it  feasible? 
The  colonies  were  far  away  and  the  ocean  rolled 
between.  Hutchinson  saw  this  when  he  said: 
"I  doubt  whether  it  is  possible  to  project  a  system 
of  government  in  which  a  colony,  three  thousand 
miles  distant  from  the  parent  state,  shall  enjoy 
all  the  liberty  of  the  parent  state."2 

Third,  the  result  was  seen  in  the  gradual  loosen 
ing  of  the  ties  that  bound  the  colonies  to  the  mother 
country,  and  with  the  loosening  of  ties,  a  loss  of 

1  British  Orations,  Adams  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  170. 

2  Howard,  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution,  p.  261. 


62  Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  feeling  of  personal  loyalty  to  the  king.  A 
writer  on  this  period  speaks  of,  "the  ancient 
and  passionate  love  of  the  American  colonists  for 
England  itself,  for  England  the  cradle  of  the  race, 
the  one  spot  in  all  the  world,  which,  during  nearly 
two  hundred  years*  absence  from  it,  they  had 
continued  to  speak  of  as  home/'1  But  a  reading 
of  the  Revolutionary  literature  does  not  support 
this  statement.  Nature  was  against  it.  The 
fact  of  distance  and  the  influence  of  time  had  done 
its  work.  The  impulsive  attitude  of  Washington, 
seen  in  his  remark,  "that  he  wished  to  God  the 
liberties  of  America  were  to  be  determined  by  a 
single  combat  between  himself  and  George,"2 
somehow  does  not  reveal  that  august  conception 
of  royalty,  that  some  of  the  loyalists  not  long  in 
the  colonies  gloried  in. 

There  is  a  story  of  early  Virginia  which  illus 
trates  the  influence  that  distance  exerted  upon 
the  colonies.  In  the  founding  of  the  James  River 
Colony,  the  Indian  Powhatan  played  an  important 
and  sometimes  unexpected  part.  It  is  said  that 
at  the  time  of  his  coronation  he  was  presented  with 
a  basin,  ewer,  bed  cover,  and  a  scarlet  cloak,  but 

1  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  Literary  History  of  Amer.  Rev.,  vol.  ii.t 
p.  132. 

a  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  440. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    63 

showed  an  unwillingness  to  kneel  and  receive  the 
crown.  At  last  three  of  the  party,  by  bearing 
hard  upon  his  shoulders,  got  him  to  stoop  a  little, 
and  while  he  was  in  that  position  they  clapped  it 
upon  his  head.  Powhatan  innocently  turned  the 
whole  proceeding  into  ridicule  by  taking  his  old 
shoes  and  cloak  of  raccoon  skin,  and  giving  them  to 
Newport  the  governor.1  Perhaps  this  is  only  an 
early  Virginian  story,  but  it  fairly  illustrates  some 
tendencies  which  due  to  the  fact  of  distance,  were 
at  work  in  America. 

Paine  used  this  growing  feeling  in  his  pam 
phlet.  He  makes  fun  of  royalty,  and  plays 
upon  the  fact  that  strong  sentiment  for  England 
is  absent.  He  says:  "Even  the  distance  at 
which  the  Almighty  hath  placed  England  and 
America  is  a  strong  and  natural  proof  that  the 
authority  of  the  one  over  the  other  was  never  the 
design  of  heaven."2  He  touches  upon  the  prac 
tical  difficulties  of  administration  when  he  says: 
"To  be  always  running  three  or  four  thousand 
miles  with  a  tale  or  petition,  waiting  four  or  five 
months  for  an  answer,  which,  when  obtained, 
requires  five  or  six  more  to  explain  it  in,  will  in  a 
few  years  be  looked  upon  as  folly  and  childish- 

1  L.  G.  Tyler,  England  in  America,  p.  56. 

*  Writings  of  Thomas  Paine,  Conway  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  89. 


64  Washington  and  Lincoln 

ness."1    And   the    people    understood    what    he 
meant. 

The  third  condition,  was  a  consciousness  of 
growing  unity,  which  was  much  deeper  than  the 
people  imagined,  because  it  often  struggled  un 
successfully  to  express  itself.  It  was  like  the 
several  streams,  which,  hidden  in  the  marshes 
flow  along  separately,  until  they  converge  and  form 
the  larger  stream.  It  found  expression  when  a 
ship  in  the  seventeenth  century  sailed  from  the 
James  River  to  Salem  for  a  cargo  of  corn.  It 
appeared  in  the  New  England  Confederation  for 
mutual  defence.  It  was  seen  later  when  the 
soldiers  from  the  different  colonies  joined  to  form 
the  common  armies  in  the  French  War.  It  was 
strengthened  as  the  population  increased  and  the 
fringes  of  the  settlements  on  the  coast  began  to 
touch.  It  was  accentuated  by  the  widespread 
opposition  in  the  colonies  to  the  attempt  at  taxa 
tion,  until  Patrick  Henry  in  the  First  Continental 
Congress  was  able  to  say:  "The  distinctions 
between  Virginians,  Pennsylvanians,  New  Yorkers, 
and  New  Englanders,  are  no  more.  I  am  not  a 
Virginian  but  an  American."2  And  finally,  it 
was  formally  expressed  in  the  Congress  which 

1  Writings  of  Thomas  Paine,  Conway  Ed.,  vol.  i.f  p.  92. 
3  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  ii.,  p.  367. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    65 

gave  forth  the  historic  document  of  protest.  For 
it  is  well  to  remember  that  this  document  was  not 
as  the  term  implies,  merely  a  declaration  of 
separation,  but  also  an  assertion  in  favour  of 
confederation. 

Washington  stands  forth  as  the  embodiment  of 
this  growing  unity.  And  the  evidence  for  this 
is  found,  where  it  is  always  best  to  find  it,  in  the 
actions  of  his  life.  Following  the  Stamp  Act 
agitation,  he  writes  to  his  agent  in  London: 

If  there  are  any  articles  contained  in  either  of  the 
respective  invoices — which  are  taxed  by  act  of  Parlia 
ment  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  revenue  in  America, 
it  is  my  express  desire  and  request  that  they  may  not 
be  sent,  as  I  have  entered  heartily  into  an  association 
not  to  import  any  article  which  now  is,  or  hereafter 
shall  be  taxed  for  this  purpose  until  the  said  act  or 
acts  are  repealed.1 

And,  five  years  later,  he  appeared  at  the  famous 
meeting  of  the  delegates  from  the  counties  of 
Virginia  at  Williamsburg,  and  delivered  a  speech 
which  another  declared  was  the  most  eloquent 
ever  made,  when  he  said:  "I  will  raise  a  regiment 
of  a  thousand  men  at  my  own  expense,  and  myself 
march  at  their  head  for  the  relief  of  Boston."2 
That  is,  Washington  was  willing  to  join  his  in- 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  268. 
3  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  ii.,  p.  360. 


66  Washington  and  Lincoln 

terests  with  those  of  men  in  the  other  colonies. 
He  was  willing  to  adjust  his  affairs,  give  of  his 
substance,  and  offer  his  services,  not  merely  for 
the  welfare  of  his  colony,  but  to  advance  the 
prosperity  of  all  the  colonies.  This  was  the  very 
essence  of  unity. 

Paine  was  keen  enough  an  observer  to  detect 
this  consciousness  of  growing  unity.  And  so  he 
appeals  to  them  to  make  the  most  of  it,  when  he 
warns  them  that  the  "Continental  belt  is  too 
loosely  buckled/'1  and  he  tells  them  again: 

'Tis  not  in  numbers  but  in  unity  that  our  great 
strength  lies;  yet  our  present  numbers  are  sufficient 
to  repel  the  force  of  all  the  world.  The  Continent 
hath  at  this  time  the  largest  body  of  armed  and 
disciplined  men  of  any  power  under  heaven;  and  is 
just  arrived  at  that  pitch  of  strength  in  which  no 
single  colony  is  able  to  support  itself,  and  the  whole 
when  united  is  able  to  do  anything.2 

And  the  people  responded  as  he  told  them  of  that 
which  they  possessed. 

Fourth,  there  was  a  feeling  of  moral  superiority. 
Or  perhaps  a  better  statement  would  be,  there  was 
a  feeling  that  the  condition  of  England  as  revealed 
in  its  political  life  was  morally  inferior.  The 

1  Writings  of  Thomas  Paine,  vol.  i.,  p.  117. 
•  Ibid.t  p.  101. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776     67 

Revolutionary  leaders  believed  that  not  a  little  of 
their  trouble  was  due  to  this  cause.  A  reading  of 
the  pamphlets  issued,  or  of  the  formal  pronounce 
ments  of  the  Continental  Congress  makes  this 
clear.  Take  this  statement,  made  by  the  Congress 
in  1775,  in  the  address  to  the  Jamaica  Assembly: 

In  Britain,  where  the  maxims  of  freedom  were  still 
known,  but  where  luxury  and  dissipation  had  dimin 
ished  the  wonted  reverence  for  them,  the  attack 
has  been  carried  on  in  a  more  secret  and  indirect 
manner.  Corruption  has  been  employed  to  under 
mine  them.  The  Americans  are  not  enervated 
by  effeminacy  like  the  inhabitants  of  India;  nor 
debauched  by  luxury  like  those  of  Great  Britain.1 

This  is  strong  language  to  use  of  those  in  high 
places,  yet  the  language  is  none  too  strong,  when 
one  turns  the  pages  of  English  history  for  the 
eighteenth  century  as  written  by  Horace  Wai- 
pole,  Lecky,  Green,  and  others.  Lecky  uses  still 
stronger  language  when  he  says,  "that  treachery 
and  duplicity  were  common  to  most  English 
statesmen  between  the  Restoration  and  the 
American  Revolution."2  Pitt  confessed  the  same 
thing  when  he  said:  "I  borrow  the  Duke  of 
Newcastle's  majority  to  carry  on  the  public 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  ii.,  p.  204. 

a  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  i., 
p.  228. 


68  Washington  and  Lincoln 

business."1  And  a  reading  of  the  debate  follow 
ing  the  introduction  in  1780  of  a  resolution  by 
Burke  calling  for  a  reform  in  the  civil  establish 
ment,  tells  the  same  story,  for  it  reveals  a 
condition  of  corruption  unequalled  in  English 
history. 

The  Revolutionary  leaders  knew  of  these  condi 
tions  through  reports  from  their  agents  resident  in 
London.  They  further  saw  evidence  of  these 
conditions  reflected  in  the  characters  of  many  of 
the  appointees  of  the  Crown  living  in  the  colonies. 
The  Revolutionary  group  was  not  morally  above 
criticism  in  all  its  individual  parts.  It  had  a 
Franklin,  whose  writings  can  hardly  be  published 
to-day,  unless  in  an  expurgated  edition.  It 
had  also  a  Jefferson,  who  for  a  time  was  so  top 
heavy  with  free  thought,  that  he  felt  it  incumbent 
upon  him  to  write  the  name  of  Deity  with  small 
letters,  and  whose  later  career  showed  serious 
moral  delinquencies.  But  these  men  were  excep 
tional.  It  would  be  impossible  to  sweep  back 
through  the  eighteenth  century  of  colonial  life 
and  find  a  list  of  leaders  that  would  equal  in 
political  corruption  the  English  statesmen,  Robert 
Walpole,  Newcastle,  Carteret,  Chesterfield,  Boling- 
broke,  Fox,  and  Wilkes.  There  was  a  moral 

1  Howard,  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution,  p.  30. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    69 

wholesomeness  in  colonial  political  life  in  marked 
contrast  to  that  of  English  political  life. 

More  than  this,  the  normal  life  of  the  Revo 
lutionary  leaders  as  expressed  in  political  ser 
vice,  had  its  roots  in  deep  religious  conviction. 
One  of  the  sayings  of  Washington  often  quoted 
is,  "that  morality  without  religion  is  dead."  The 
men  of  this  period  believed  this.  The  distinction 
is  sometimes  made  between  the  French  and 
American  Revolutions  to  the  effect  that  the  French 
was  social  and  the  American  was  political.  A 
better  distinction  would  be  that  the  French  was 
philosophical  in  its  origin  and  social  in  its  expres 
sion,  and  the  American  was  religious  in  its  origin 
and  political  in  its  expression. 

Much  has  been  written  to  prove  the  origin  of 
the  political  theories  of  the  American  Revolution. 
Some  have  found  it  in  the  writings  of  Rousseau. 
Others  are  sure  that  Locke  was  the  source.  Still 
others  have  found  traces  in  Molyneaux  or  Har 
rington.  All  of  the  answers  are  true  to  the  extent 
that  in  these  writings  are  thoughts  similar  to 
those  expressed  in  the  Revolutionary  period.  But 
the  reader  is  surprised  as  he  examines  the  writings 
of  the  Revolutionary  leaders,  to  find  how  rarely  any 
of  these  thinkers  are  mentioned  or  quoted.  The 
exception  to  this  is  in  Blackstone's  exposition  of 


70  Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  Great  Charter  published  in  1765,  which  gave 
an  interpretation  in  the  light  of  the  Revolutions  of 
1640  and  1688.  Undoubtedly  this  influenced  the 
American  thinkers  in  writing  the  "bills  of  rights. " 
Burke,  in  making  his  great  speech  of  1775  on 
conciliation,  testifies  to  the  influence  of  Blackstone 
when  he  says:  "I  hear  that  they  (English  pub 
lishers)  have  sold  nearly  as  many  of  Blackstone's 
Commentaries  in  America  as  in  England.  General 
Gage  marks  out  this  disposition  very  particularly 
in  a  letter  on  your  table. "  * 

The  more  simple,  and  certainly  the  more  easily 
traced  answer  is,  that  the  political  ideas  of  this 
period  had  their  origin  in  the  religious  convictions 
and  ecclesiastical  experiences  of  the  people.  The 
little  church  at  Plymouth  had  the  compact  theory 
in  working  order  half  a  century  before  Locke 
wrote  his  Two  Treatises  on  Government.  The 
Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  on  the  fringe  of  the 
Appalachian  Mountains  knew  about  the  covenant 
idea,  which  came  from  Geneva  and  had  been 
accepted  by  their  ancestors  in  Scotland  and  Ire 
land,  two  centuries  before  Rousseau,  himself  a 
native  of  Geneva,  wrote  his  Social  Contract.2 

1  British  Orations,  vol.  i.,  p.  277. 

9  For  discussion  of  "covenant  idea"  in  relation  to  government, 
see  A.  C.  McLaughlin's  "A  Written  Constitution  in  Some  of  its 
Historical  Aspects,"  Michigan  Law  Review,  vol.  v.,  June,  1907. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    71 

Jellinek,  in  his  remarkable  essay  in  which  an 
attempt  is  made  to  prove  the  origin  of  the  famous 
Declaration  of  Rights  adopted  by  the  French 
Assembly  in  1789,  says: 

The  idea  of  legally  establishing  inalienable,  inherent, 
and  sacred  rights  of  the  individual  is  not  of  political 
but  religious  origin.  What  has  been  held  to  be  a 
work  of  the  Revolution  (French)  was  in  reality  a  fruit 
of  the  Reformation  and  its  struggles.  Its  first  apostle 
was  not  Lafayette  but  Roger  Williams,  who  driven 
by  powerful  and  deep  religious  enthusiasm,  went  into 
the  wilderness  in  order  to  found  a  government  of 
religious  liberty,  and  his  name  is  uttered  by  Americans 
even  to-day  with  the  deepest  respect. l 

The  fact  is,  the  truths  of  a  period  are  more  often 
found  in  institutions  than  in  books.  The  great 
work  of  Calvin,  which  influenced  the  Puritan 
Reformation  in  England,  was  carried  across  the 
channel  from  Europe  by  English  and  Scotch 
scholars,  not  because  they  read  it  in  his  Institutes, 
but  because  they  visited  Geneva  and  studied  it  as 
an  institution.  And  to-day  the  student  of  the 
Revolutionary  period  does  well  to  pay  less  attention 
to  Rousseau  and  Locke,  and  more  attention  to 
the  history  of  the  little  "white  meeting  houses'* 
with  their  forms  of  organisation  and  church 
covenants.  Again  to  quote  Jellinek: 

1  Jellinek,  Rights  of  Man  and  of  Citizen,  p.  77. 


72  Washington  and  Lincoln 

Literature  alone  never  produces  anything,  unless  it 
finds  in  the  historical  and  social  conditions  ground 
for  its  working.  When  one  shows  the  literary  origin 
of  an  idea,  one  has  by  no  means  therewith  discovered 
the  record  of  its  practical  significance.  The  history 
of  political  science  to-day  is  entirely  too  much  a 
history  of  the  literature  and  too  little  a  history  of  the 
institutions  themselves. l 

Paine  understood  this.  He  correctly  discerned 
the  feeling  of  moral  superiority,  which  has  its 
source  in  deep  religious  convictions  and  ecclesi 
astical  experiences.  He  had  been  from  England 
but  two  years,  when  he  wrote  Common  Sense,  and 
doubtless  he  was  familiar  with  Rousseau  and  Locke. 
But  in  stating  the  historical  origin  of  the  compact 
theory  he  never  mentions  either.  His  statement 
is  faulty,  but  in  finding  the  origin  in  the  Old 
Testament,  he  appealed  to  the  thought  of  his  day. 
He  wrote  in  the  language  of  a  people  that  believed 
in  a  conception  of  government  founded  upon  the 
Word  of  God.  And  while  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Washington  ever  bothered  his  head  about  the 
theological  argument  for  the  covenant  theory, 
yet  as  he  enters  the  House  of  God  by  the  roadside 
in  Virginia,  and  spends  the  day  in  fasting  and 
prayer,  in  preparation  for  the  mighty  struggle,  he 
seems  to  stand  forth  as  the  type  of  religious 

'Jellinek,  Rights  of  Man  and  of  Citizen, -p.  57. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    73 

earnestness,  that  gave  to  the  movement  a  force 
that  was  irresistible. x 

Finally,  there  was  an  advanced  ideal  of  political 
freedom.  There  are  two  statements  often  made, 
in  one  form  or  another,  which  have  in  them  a 
wealth  of  meaning.  One  is  that  in  the  American 
Revolution,  the  England  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury  met  and  maintained  itself  against  the  England 
of  the  eighteenth.  The  other  is  that  the  people 
of  the  colonies,  the  freest  people  then  on  earth, 
insisted  on,  and  deserved  a  larger  freedom.  Both 
these  statements  as  broad  generalisations  are  true. 
And  being  true,  they  carry  with  them  certain 
implications.  The  first  is,  that  if  the  colonies 
stood  for  the  seventeenth  century  ideal,  then  this 
was  freer  than  the  eighteenth.  Another  is,  that 
the  ideal  of  the  eighteenth  century  in  England 
marks  a  retrograde  movement  in  its  political 
life.  And  still  another  is,  that  in  the  clash  of  the 
ideals  of  the  two  centuries,  is  found  the  political 
interpretation  of  the  Revolution. 

As  was  stated  in  considering  the  moral  superior 
ity  of  the  colonies,  the  dominant  theory  of  govern 
ment  was  that  which  came  from  the  Puritan 
Reformation,  and  which  found  expression  in  the 
ecclesiastical  forms  and  theological  creeds.  It  is 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  415. 


74  Washington  and  Lincoln 

interesting  to  trace  this  theory  as  it  is  taken  over 
into  government  in  the  early  days,  as,  for  example, 
by  Thomas  Hooker,  and  to  see  how  it  acted  upon 
political  organisations.  And  as  the  influence  is 
studied,  the  one  outstanding  fact  in  colonial 
life  is  the  growing  participation  of  the  people  in 
affairs  of  government.  It  was  seen  in  the  town 
meetings  of  New  England,  then  in  the  assemblies 
of  the  colonies,  and  finally  in  the  supreme  act  of 
the  Revolutionary  era — the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence.  For  the  Declaration  was  not  given  to 
the  world  by  a  group  of  men  that  exercised  its 
judgment  as  a  representative  body,  but  by  a  group 
which  received  definite  instructions  from  the 
people  speaking  through  conventions  and  as 
semblies. 

While  this  development  was  taking  place  in 
the  colonies,  a  retrograde  movement  was  taking 
place  in  England.  When  this  began  is  not  clear. 
Some  have  placed  the  beginning  of  the  movement 
at  the  coronation  of  George  the  Third.  The 
reason  for  this  is,  that  about  the  time  of  the 
coronation  of  this  king,  the  Tory  Party  after  a 
long  absence,  returned  to  power.  However,  this 
is  probably  not  correct.  Although  during  the 
first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  Whigs  who 
were  in  power,  stood  for  government  by  Parlia- 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1 776    75 

ment,  as  over  against  unlimited  power  by  the 
king,  yet  Parliament  meant  for  them  not  a  repre 
sentative  body  through  which  the  people  spoke, 
but  an  agency  by  which  certain  great  families 
controlled  the  government.  And  it  is  not  without 
some  significance  that  the  authors  of  the  two 
obnoxious  acts  which  led  up  to  the  Revolution, 
namely,  Grenville  and  Townshend,  were  Whigs, 
though  serving  under  a  Tory  king. ' 

So  the  better  statement  would  be,  that, 
following  the  Restoration  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  a  movement  away  from  the  Puritan 
conception  of  government  began,  which  was 
accentuated  by  the  coronation  of  George  the 
Third  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  reached  its 
height  as  the  Tory  Party  coming  into  power  dur 
ing  his  reign,  encouraged  him  in  the  extreme  use 
of  prerogative. 

As  the  result  of  the  development  of  the  seven 
teenth  century  ideas  in  the  colonies  was  seen 
in  the  growing  participation  of  the  people  in 
government,  so  the  result  of  the  retrograde  move 
ment  away  from  these  same  ideas  in  England  was 
seen  in  the  failure  to  appreciate  the  meaning  of 
the  absence  of  government  by  the  people.  A 
striking  illustration  of  this  is  seen  in  the  argument 

1  Bernard  Holland,  Imperium  et  Libertas,  p.  24. 


76  Washington  and  Lincoln 

of  Mansfield  on  virtual  representation.  In  the 
House  of  Commons  in  the  year  1774,  there  were 
513  members.  Of  these,  254  members  represented 
less  than  1 1,500  voters,  and  56  members,  700  votes. 
And  of  these  56  members  not  one  had  as  many  as 
38  electors  and  6  not  more  than  3.  The  County  of 
Middlesex,  including  London  and  Westminster, 
returned  8  members  and  Cornwall  44  members.1 
This  condition  was  not  created  during  the  reign 
of  George  the  Third.  It  existed  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  against  it  Locke  uttered  his  protest.2 
But  had  the  leavening  influence  of  the  Reformation 
period  of  the  seventeenth  century  been  in  the 
political  lump,  this  condition  would  have  been 
modified  by  the  time  of  George's  accession  to 
power.  And  when  Mansfield  spoke  in  favour  of 
this  sort  of  representation,  attempting  to  justify 
it  on  constitutional  grounds,  it  is  little  wonder  that 
in  America  some  grew  impatient  of  searching 
"amid  musty  parchments."  He  was  using  a 
language  that  the  colonies  did  not  understand. 
There  was  nothing  in  their  political  life  to  corres 
pond  to  it.  They  had  gone  so  far  beyond  it,  that 
they  could  not  see  that  which  was  left  behind. 
And  so,  in  attempting  to  extend  the  system  of 

1  Lecky,  History  of  England  in   Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  iii.f 
p.  372.  a  Works  of  John  Locke,  vol.  v.f  p.  432. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    77 

imperial  control  under  the  influence  of  this  retro 
grade  movement,  the  inevitable  clash  came  in  the 
Revolution,  whose  outcome  was  colonial  indepen 
dence. 

Just  what  was  the  position  of  Washington  as 
regards  political  freedom?  Did  he  believe  in  the 
England  of  the  seventeenth  century,  reappearing 
under  development  in  the  colonial  life  of  the 
eighteenth  century?  He  accepted,  of  course,  the 
colonial  position  as  to  taxation  and  representation. 
But  so  did  such  men  as  Dulany  and  Galloway, 
who  refused  to  accept  the  Declaration.  Did  he 
throw  in  his  lot  with  the  Revolutionary  leaders  as 
the  lesser  of  two  evils?  Was  he  really  an  aristo 
crat  who  lacked  faith  in  the  people,  but  decided 
all  things  considered,  to  stand  with  the  people? 
These  are  interesting  questions.  The  disposition 
on  the  part  of  many  historical  writers,  is  to  lay 
stress  upon  Washington  the  soldier,  and  to  ignore 
him  as  the  statesman.  As  a  result,  Washington 
at  this  time  in  his  career  is  seen  with  his  cloak 
wrapped  about  him,  standing  in  the  stern  of  the 
boat,  as  it  makes  its  way  through  the  floating 
ice  of  the  Delaware  River.  But  rarely  is  he  seen 
in  the  attitude  of  quiet  meditation  on  the  affairs 
of  government. 

It  is  true  that  as  the  student  compares  the 


78  Washington  and  Lincoln 

writings  of  Washington  with  those  of  Jefferson, 
John  Adams,  or  Franklin,  he  notes  an  absence  of 
philosophical  discussion.  Yet  in  his  writings 
there  is  enough  suggested,  when  taken  with  his 
actions,  to  enable  the  student  to  form  a  fairly 
complete  picture.  There  is  the  letter  written  in 
October,  1774,  to  Robert  MacKenzie,  an  old  army 
friend,  who  had  taken  the  loyalist  side  of  the 
controversy,  and  joined  the  British  army  at  Bos 
ton.  He  wrote  Washington  in  August  making 
some  derogatory  mention  of  the  New  England 
leader,  which  disturbed  Washington,  as  he,  and 
other  southern  leaders,  felt  a  little  uneasy  about 
Sam  Adams  and  his  associates  from  the  North. 
But  with  characteristic  fairness  and  thoroughness, 
upon  reaching  Philadelphia,  he  called  at  their 
lodgings  and  spent  the  evening  with  them,  with 
the  result  that  Washington's  reply  sent  to  Mac 
Kenzie,  shows  him  entirely  favourable  to  Adams 
and  his  friends,  and  reveals  the  quiet  Virginian 
in  substantial  agreement  with  the  aggressive  New 
Englanders  in  the  movement  toward  reconcilia 
tion  through  united  action,  even  to  the  extent  of 
armed  resistance.1 

There  is  also  the  moment  in  the  spring  day  in 
June,  1 775,  when  he  modestly  arose  in  the  Congress, 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  441. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    79 

and  accepted  the  command  of  the  army. r  If  the 
saying  is  true,  that  actions  speak  louder  than 
words,  then  this  action  of  Washington  in  turning 
his  back  upon  his  ample  estates,  and  committing 
himself,  if  needs  be,  unto  death,  to  "the  glorious 
cause,"  is  filled  with  profound  meaning.  Such 
action  has  its  roots  in  conviction.  And  as  Wash 
ington,  seen  leaving  the  Congress,  is  followed  on 
the  weary  marches,  and  in  the  conflict  of  many 
battlefields,  the  inference  is  surely  reasonable, 
that  along  with  others,  he  accepted  the  fundamen 
tal  contention  of  the  period,  and  believed,  that 
the  colonies  with  their  conception  of  freedom, 
so  opposed  to  that  prevailing  in  England,  were 
justified  in  seeking  their  independence. 

And  then  there  is  Paine 's  pamphlet  entitled 
Common  Sense,  written  in  the  winter  of  1776. 
Washington's  commendation  of  it,  as  "sound  in 
argument  and  unanswerable  in  reasoning,"  has 
been  something  of  a  stumbling  block  to  those  who 
would  picture  him  as  the  reserved  aristocrat, 
having  little  confidence  in  the  people.  It  does 
seem  a  bit  strange  to  connect  Washington  with 
Paine  and  his  theory  of  simple  democracy.  Of 
course,  it  will  not  do  to  make  too  much  of  an 
isolated  commendation.  However,  lest  it  be  sup- 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  ii.,  p.  92. 


8o  Washington  and  Lincoln 

posed  that  he  was  under  a  momentary  enthusiasm, 
or  reached  his  conviction  regarding  the  people  for 
the  first  time  by  reading  Paine,  it  may  be  well  to 
recall,  that  six  months  before,  in  his  letter  to 
General  Gage,  in  speaking  of  his  own  commission 
in  the  army,  he  says:  "You  affect  Sir,  to  despise 
all  rank  not  derived  from  the  same  source  with 
your  own.  I  cannot  conceive  one  more  honourable 
than  that  which  flows  from  the  uncorrupted  choice 
of  a  brave  and  free  people,  the  purest  source  and 
fountain  of  all  power. " l 

It  is  sometimes  suggested,  and  with  reason,  that 
Washington  reached  his  position  regarding  govern 
ment  in  the  Revolutionary  period,  without  caring 
much  for  the  speculative  and  constitutional 
aspects  of  the  question.  In  mentioning  the  ques 
tion  of  taxation  and  representation  in  one  of  his 
letters  in  1765,  he  refers  to  the  "speculative part 
of  the  colonists."2  In  another  letter  written  in 
1774,  he  modestly  disclaims  possessing  any  legal 
knowledge  and  says:  "Whilst  much  abler  heads 
than  my  own  hath  fully  convinced  me  that  it  is 
.  .  .  subversive  of  the  laws  and  constitution  of 
Great  Britain.  "3  But  if  Washington  seems  never 
to  have  threaded  his  way  through  the  intricate 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  91. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  209.  *  Ibid.,  p.  435. 


The  Revolutionary  Group  of  1776    81 

windings  of  constitutional  precedent,  yet  he  early 
reached  the  conclusion  that  such  taxation  was 
against  nature  and  therefore  wrong.  And  this 
was  precisely  the  position  which  the  Revolutionary 
leaders,  after  insisting  upon  "ancient,  charter,  and 
constitutional  rights,"  finally  took. 

If  it  be  suggested,  that  the  simplicity  and  direct 
ness  with  which  Washington  based  the  whole 
question  from  the  first  upon  natural  right,  implies 
a  poverty  of  thought  on  his  part,  the  answer  is 
that  he  uses  about  the  same  language  that  the 
mighty  Pitt,  and  the  profound  Camden,  as  quoted 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  used.  Pitt  said:  "At 
the  same  time  this  kingdom,  as  the  supreme  govern 
ing  and  legislative  power,  had  always  bound  the 
colonies  by  the  laws  ...  in  everything,  except  that 
of  taking  their  money  out  of  their  pockets  without 
their  consent."1  Washington  said:  "I  think  the 
Parliament  of  Great  Britain  hath  no  more  right 
to  put  their  hands  into  my  pocket  without  my 
consent,  than  I  have  to  put  my  hands  into  yours 
for  money."2  Camden  said:  "My  position  is 
this  .  .  .  taxation  and  representation  are  in 
separable.  This  position  is  founded  on  the  law 
of  nature.  It  is  more,  it  is  in  itself  an  eternal 

'  Cf.  p.  30. 

a  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  420. 
6 


82  Washington  and  Lincoln 

law  of  nature."1  Washington  said:  "An  innate 
spirit  of  freedom  first  told  me,  that  the  measures 
.  .  .  are  repugnant  to  every  principle  of  natural 
justice."2 

And  so  in  concluding  the  study  of  the  Revolu 
tionary  group  of  1776,  it  may  be  said  that  its 
attitude  was  one  of  protest  against  the  theory  of 
the  Parliamentary  group  regarding  power  in 
government.  The  reason  for  this  protest  is  found 
in  certain  conditions  of  colonial  life;  the  sense  of 
vastness,  the  fact  of  distance,  the  growing  con 
sciousness  of  unity,  the  feeling  of  moral  superiority, 
and  the  advanced  conception  of  political  freedom. 
And  as  Washington  was  the  dominant  personality 
in  the  group  that  made  the  protest,  so  was  he 
also  the  nearest  approach  to  the  embodiment  of 
the  conditions  that  explain  the  protest. 

•Cf.p.3*. 

a  Writings  of  Washington,  Fcrd  Ed.,  vol.  ii.f  p.  435. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787 

IT  is  a  familiar  fact  in  history,  that  great  men 
move  in  the  direction  of  unusual  events,  which, 
though  just  ahead,  are  not  anticipated,  but  which 
when  reached,  are  accepted  as  inevitable.  And 
history  offers  no  finer  illustration  of  this  fact  than 
Washington  in  relation  to  the  two  great  events  of 
his  career,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  On  his 
way  to  the  Continental  Congress  in  1774,  and 
moving  in  the  direction  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  Washington  did  not  anticipate  it, 
for  he  wrote  a  friend  at  this  time,  "that  no  think 
ing  man  in  North  America  desired  independence;" 
but  in  1776  he  accepted  the  same  as  inevitable 
and  proceeded  with  the  army  under  his  com 
mand,  to  make  it  effective. 

Again  in  1785,  Washington  did  not  catch  the 
significance  of  events  as  from  the  threshold  of  his 
ample  home  he  welcomed  the  commissioners  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia,  who  came  to  discuss  the 
navigation  of  the  Potomac  River.1  Yet  within 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  x.,  p.  371,  note. 
83 


84  Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  walls  of  his  mansion,  plans  were  adopted  which 
involved  another  and  larger  meeting  the  following 
year  at  Annapolis.  And  when  from  this  larger 
meeting  the  call  for  a  convention  was  issued,  he 
responded  to  the  same,  and  in  1787  started  on  his 
second  historic  journey  from  Mt.  Vernon  to 
Philadelphia,  accepting  the  fact,  that  the  time 
had  come  to  act  in  amending  the  frame  of 
government. 

With  this  thought  in  his  mind,  let  us  think 
of  him  as  he  entered  the  city  by  the  Delaware 
on  the  May  morning  in  1787.  Thirteen  years 
had  passed  since  he  first  visited  the  city  as  a 
member  of  the  Continental  Congress — as  many 
years  as  there  were  States  in  the  Confederation. 
About  him  were  reminders  of  those  days.  There 
was  the  famous  hall  in  which  he  presented  his 
credentials  as  a  deputy  from  Virginia.  Smith's 
tavern  was  still  standing,  which  had  been  the 
favourite  rendezvous  of  the  celebrated  leaders. 
To  the  northward  ran  the  highway,  along  which  he 
passed,  on  the  memorable  day  when  he  received 
his  commission  as  commander  of  the  army.  It 
must  be  that  the  rather  slow  imagination  of  his 
massive  nature  kindled  amid  such  reminders  of 
other  days.  But  Washington  was  not  the  man  to 
lose  himself  in  the  memories  of  the  past.  He 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1 787    85 

was  essentially  a  man  of  action,  and  the  present 
for  him  was  all  important. 

Perhaps  as  he  drew  near  the  city,  there  was  in 
his  pocket  the  last  newspaper  from  Boston,  giving 
in  more  detail  the  facts  of  the  recent  Shays  Rebel 
lion,  which  prompted  him  to  write  that,  "  there  are 
combustibles  in  every  state,  which  a  spark  might 
set  fire  to  ...  I  feel  .  .  .  infinitely  more  than  I 
can  express  to  you  the  disorders  which  have  arisen 
in  these  states."1  It  is  possible,  that  as  he 
sought  the  place  of  meeting,  he  saw  boys  tying 
continental  paper  money  to  a  dog's  tail,  or  noticed 
some  of  the  money  pasted  on  the  walls  of  a  barber 
shop,  thus  reminding  him,  in  a  ridiculous  manner 
to  be  sure,  that  instead  of  national  credit  there  was 
only  financial  weakness.2 

Doubtless  as  he  talked  with  others  gathered 
for  the  convention,  and  listened  to  the  reports 
of  conditions  in  their  States,  the  conviction  settled 
down  upon  his  mind,  like  the  damp  fog  coming 
in  from  the  sea,  that  the  former  unified  enthusiasm 
no  longer  existed.  The  States  were  now  more 
interested  in  independence  through  local  assem 
blies,  than  in  government  by  confederation.  And 


1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  103. 
3  A.  C.  McLaughlin's  The  Confederation  and  the  Constitution, 
p.  56. 


86  Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  as  he  knew,  was 
like  a  clock,  which  in  need  of  winding,  strikes  the 
hour  but  faintly,  and  soon  will  cease  even  to 
strike. 

Think  of  him  also,  as  he  entered  the  convention 
hall  and  looked  over  the  company  assembled. 
How  many  from  the  earlier  days  were  missing? 
Sam  Adams  was  not  in  the  rear  of  the  room  plan 
ning  with  others  some  forward  move.  Patrick 
Henry  was  not  on  his  feet  welding  the  various 
interests  into  a  single  impulse  by  his  superb 
oratory.  Thomas  Jefferson  who  had  entered  the 
Continental  Congress  as  Washington  left  it,  was 
not  in  his  seat  putting  the  finishing  touches  to 
some  document.  John  Adams  was  not  taking 
notes  preparatory  to  leading  some  great  debate. 
And  Tom  Paine  was  not  on  the  outside  trying  to 
convince  some  cautious  member  of  the  need  for 
more  radical  action. z  The  personnel  of  the  leader 
ship  had  changed.  Only  six  men  who  had  signed 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  were  to  sign  the 
document  of  this  convention. 

Benjamin  Franklin,  the  aged  diplomatist,  just 
home  after  a  brilliant  career  in  France,  was  there. 

1  Paine  according  to  his  biographer,  was  responsible  for  the 
clause  in  the  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  against  slavery. 
It  was  stricken  out  as  too  radical.  Conway's  Life  of  Paine,  vol. 
i.,  p.  80. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787    87 

Robert  Morris,  the  seasoned  financier  who  had 
often  watched  the  treasury  when  it  needed  no 
watching  because  of  lack  of  funds  was  in  his 
seat.  Roger  Sherman,  who  began  life  as  a  shoe 
maker,  rising  by  sheer  merit  to  a  position  of 
commanding  influence  in  his  State,  and  James 
Wilson,  the  speculative  Scotsman,  whose  theories 
were  as  sensible  as  they  were  daring  were  both 
members. 

Along  with  these  veterans  of  the  former  struggle, 
was  a  company  of  younger  recruits.1  Rufus 
King,  the  able  statesman  with  his  inspiring  vision 
of  national  greatness;  William  Paterson,  who 
never  faltered  in  his  devotion  to  the  smaller 
States  even  at  the  expense  of  the  larger;  Edmund 
Randolph,  who  presented  one  of  the  constitu 
tional  plans  for  discussion,  but  which  plan  was  so 
changed  that  he  refused  to  sign  it ;  the  Pinckneys 
of  South  Carolina,  who  were  to  this  convention 
what  the  " brace  of  Adamses"  had  been  to  the 
Continental  Congress;  Gouverneur  Morris,  whose 
impulses  were  sometimes  in  excess  of  his  judgment, 


1  William  Pierce  of  Georgia,  did  for  the  Constitutional  conven 
tion,  what  John  Adams  in  his  "Familiar  Letters"  did  for  the 
Continental  Congress.  He  seems  to  have  been  specially  inter 
ested  in  the  ages  of  the  members.  And  if  his  statements  are 
correct  the  average  age  was  about  forty.  See  foot  notes  to 
Madison's  Journal. 


88  Washington  and  Lincoln 

and  who  gave  to  the  document  its  final  literary 
form;  James  Madison,  the  thorough  student  of 
govemm  nt,  who  took  a  seat  near  the  front  and 
by  his  reports  saved  the  records  for  posterity1; 
and  Alexander  Hamilton  easily  the  most  brilliant 
man  in  the  company,  with  an  influence  which 
did  not  become  decisive  until  the  convention 
adjourned. 2 

Then  think  of  Washington  in  the  convention, 
as  he  takes  his  place  upon  the  platform  to 
preside  over  its  deliberations.  The  Journal  of 
Madison  says  that  a  quorum  having  been  counted 
a  motion  was  made  and  passed  without  a  dissent 
ing  voice,  electing  him  the  presiding  officer.3 
Does  this  mean  that  he  is  the  commanding  person 
ality  of  this  era,  as  he  had  been  of  the  Revolution 
ary  era?  From  another  hall,  less  than  a  stone's 
throw  away,  he  had  some  years  before,  with 
becoming  modesty  hurried  out,  when  the  Conti 
nental  Congress  turned  to  him  as  commander-in- 
chief  to  make  effective  on  the  field  of  battle  the 

1  "In  pursuance  of  the  task  I  had  assumed,  I  chose  a  seat  in 
front  of  the  presiding  member.  ...  In  this  favourable  position 
for  hearing  all  that  passed,  I  noted  in  terms  legible  .  .  .  what  was 
read  from  the  chair  or  spoken  by  the  members."  Madison's 
Writings,  vol.  ii.,  p.  410. 

a  Gertrude  Atherton's  novel,  The  Conqueror,  should  be  read 
for  its  description  of  Hamilton. 

*  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  3. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1 787    89 

protest  they  were  uttering.  And  now  in  this  era, 
of  constructive  governmental  action  do  they 
by  this  act,  repose  the  same  confidence  in  his 
judgment  and  character? 

Of  course  too  much  or  not  enough  may  be  made 
of  the  fact  that  he  was  elected  presiding  officer. 
Too  much  may  be  made  of  his  position  in  this  era, 
by  forgetting  that  the  suggestion  for  this  conven 
tion  did  not  come  from  him.  It  probably  came 
from  Hamilton.1  Neither  was  the  conception  of 
government  which  took  shape  in  the  convention, 
his  product.  The  credit  for  this,  if  given  to  any 
man,  belongs  to  Pelatiah  Webster.  2  In  the 
discussions  as  recorded  in  the  Journal,  he  took 
little  part,  and  offered  no  contribution.  In  the 
gathering,  were  men  who  in  certain  particulars 
were  his  superiors.  James  Wilson  was  keener 
in  debate;  Rufus  King's  imagination  was  more 
glowing;  James  Madison  had  read  more  widely; 
Alexander  Hamilton  was  more  resourceful;  and 
Benjamin  Franklin's  experience  was  more  varied. 

However,  if  the  student  needs  to  be  on  his  guard, 
lest  he  place  an  excessive  emphasis  upon  Washing 
ton's  position  in  this  era,  he  needs  also  to  be  careful 

1  Works  of  Hamilton,  J.  C.  Hamilton,  vol.  i.,  p.  150  ff. 

2  Hannis  Taylor,  Origin  and  Growth  of  American  Constitution, 
Appendix  xi. 


90  Washington  and  Lincoln 

lest  he  goes  to  the  other  extreme.  There  are 
those  who  picture  him  as  the  American  gentleman 
with  English  traditions  who  was  forced  to  leave  the 
retirement  of  his  plantation  and  lend  his  influence 
to  a  movement  that  he  knew  little  about.  They 
portray  him  as  dozing  now  and  then  in  the  con 
vention  while  members  in  debate  drew  heavily 
upon  their  learning,  and  quoted  the  experiments  in 
European  governments,  even  as  he  dozed  at  an 
earlier  period  while  his  portrait  was  being  painted. x 
He  knew  what  was  meant  when  the  commissioners 
met  at  Mt.  Vernon  and  talked  about  the  naviga 
tion  of  the  Potomac  River.  He  understood  the 
import  of  the  discussion  when  at  Annapolis  in 
1786,  the  commercial  situation  in  the  States  was 
considered.  But  when  the  movement  widened 
into  one  for  the  call  of  a  convention  to  frame  a 
new  government  it  went  beyond  him.  To  be  sure, 
he  was  elected  President  of  the  convention,  and 
the  election  was  a  wise  one;  because,  owing  to  his 
military  career,  his  influence  was  such  as  to  make 

1 "  Inclination  having  yielded  to  importunity,  I  am  now 
contrary  to  all  expectation  under  the  hands  of  Mr.  Peale;  but 
in  so  grave — so  sullen  a  mood — and  now  and  then  under  the 
influence  of  Morpheus,  when  some  critical  strokes  are  making, 
that  I  fancy  the  skill  of  this  gentleman's  pencil  will  be  put  to  it, 
in  describing  to  the  world  what  manner  of  man  I  am. "  To  Dr. 
Boucher,  May  21,  1772.  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  349. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787    91 

his  presence  count  for  much.  This  is  the  washed 
out  picture  that  some  draw  of  the  great  leader 
in  1787. 

But  the  true  picture  of  Washington  in  this  period 
has  lines  that  are  clearer  and  colours  that  are 
stronger.  It  is  drawn  not  alone  from  material 
provided  in  this  one  act.  Men  could  never  forget 
the  blue  uniform  and  buff  trimmings  of  the  general. 
Neither  could  these  things  hide  the  rich  and  full 
nature  of  the  man.  Others,  who  in  certain  par 
ticulars  were  his  superiors,  turned  to  him  because 
his  personality  was  so  commanding  that  it  drew 
them  to  itself,  as  the  magnet  draws  the  steel 
filings.  Hamilton  in  writing  to  him  four  years 
before  said:  "I  will  add  that  your  Excellency's 
exertions  are  as  essential  to  accomplish  this  end 
as  they  have  been  to  establish  independence."1 
Two  months  before  the  convention  met  Knox 
wrote:  "I  am  persuaded  that  your  name  has  had 
already  great  influence  to  induce  the  states  to 
come  into  the  measure — and  that  it  would  more 
than  any  other  circumstance  induce  a  compliance 
with  the  propositions  of  the  convention."2  And 
after  the  convention  had  been  in  session  two 
months,  and  rumours  of  serious  differences  began 

1  Works  of  Hamilton,  J.  C.  Hamilton,  vol.  i.,  p.  349. 

a  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  123  note. 


92  Washington  and  Lincoln 

to  reach  the  public,  Monroe  in  writing  to  Jefferson 
said: 

But  I  trust  that  the  presence  of  General  Washington 
will  have  great  weight  in  the  body  itself,  so  as  to  over 
run  and  keep  under  the  demon  of  party,  and  that  the 
signature  of  his  name  to  whatever  act  shall  be  the 
result  of  their  deliberations,  will  secure  its  passage 
through  the  Union. x 

With  such  testimony  before  us,  it  may  be  said, 
that  it  was  his  influence  which  led  to  the  calling 
of  the  convention,  held  it  together  during  a  critical 
period,  and  after  adjournment  made  it  possible 
for  its  document  to  be  adopted.  And  more  than 
this  may  be  claimed:  It  is  known  that  he  kept 
pace  with  the  progressive  thought  in  his  day  re 
garding  the  need  of  a  stronger  government.  While 
other  great  leaders  from  the  Revolutionary  era, 
such  as  Samuel  Adams  and  Patrick  Henry  still 
speculated  on  liberty  and  its  meaning,  he  moved 
forward  to  the  region  of  government.  A  few 
weeks  before  the  convention  assembled  in  Phila 
delphia,  he  examined  the  drafts  of  a  proposed 
constitution,  as  prepared  by  Pinckney,  Madison, 
and  Hamilton,  and  tabulated  the  results.2  He 
was  convinced  that  the  advance  registered  through 

1  Writings  of  James  Monroe,  Hamilton  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.   173. 
3  North  American  Review,  vol.  xxv.,  p.  263. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787    93 

protest  in  1776  could  be  made  permanent,  only  as 
a  stronger  government  was  established.  When  the 
convention  came  together  his  hope  was  that  it 
would  "probe  the  defects  of  the  constitution  to  the 
bottom  and  provide  a  radical  cure.  MI  Power  was 
needed,  and  by  power  he  meant  to  accept  Hamil 
ton's  definition  given  later  in  The  Federalist, 
"the  faculty  and  ability  of  doing  a  thing."2 

His  position  on  the  need  of  a  stronger  govern 
ment  may  be  illustrated  by  a  story  which  James 
Wilson  told. 

The  business  which  we  are  told  was  entrusted 
to  the  late  convention  was  merely  to  amend  the 
Articles  of  Confederation.  This  observation  had  been 
frequently  made,  and  has  brought  to  my  mind,  a 
story  that  is  told  of  Mr.  Pope,  who,  it  is  well-known, 
was  not  a  little  deformed.  It  was  customary  with 
him,  to  use  this  expression,  "God  mend  me!"  when 
any  little  accident  happened.  One  evening  a  little 
boy  was  lighting  him  along  and  coming  to  a  gutter, 
the  boy  jumped  nimbly  over  it.  Mr.  Pope  called  to 
him  to  turn,  adding  "God  mend  me!"  The  arch 
rogue  turning  to  light  him,  looked  at  him  and  re 
peated  "God  mend  you?  He  would  sooner  make 
half  a  dozen  new  ones."  This  would  apply  to  the 
present  Confederation ;  for  it  would  be  easier  to  make 
another  than  to  mend  this.3 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  134. 

3  Federalist  No.  33. 

*  Elliott's  Debates,  vol.  ii.,  p.  470. 


94  Washington  and  Lincoln 

There  remains  one  further  question,  before 
considering  the  work  of  the  Constitutional  group, 
and  that  is,  was  Washington  able  from  experience 
or  observation,  to  derive  any  assistance,  in  form 
ing  a  judgment  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  govern 
mental  plan  evolved  from  the  debates  in  the 
convention?  There  are  two  statements  about  the 
Constitution,  which  taken  by  themselves  would 
imply  that  it  came  forth  full-orbed  from  some 
individual  or  collective  brain.  One  is  De  Toc- 
queville's  statement  to  the  effect  that  it  is  a 
"novel  theory,  which  may  be  considered  as  a 
great  invention  in  modern  political  science."1 
The  other  is  Gladstone's  famous  comparison,  in 
which,  having  mentioned  the  British  constitution 
as  ' '  the  most  subtle  organism  which  has  proceeded 
from  progressive  history,"  he  then  refers  to  the 
American  Constitution  as  "the  most  wonderful 
work  ever  struck  off  at  a  given  time  by  the  brain 
and  purpose  of  man."2 

But  these  statements  are  only  true  in  part,  for 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  Washington  as  he 
presided  over  the  convention,  believed  that  a 

1  De  Tocqueville,  Democracy  in  America,  Bigelow  Ed.,  vol.  i.t 
p.  151. 

2  The  writer  has  often  seen  this  statement  in  print,  but  has  been 
unable  to  find  it  in  any  of  Gladstone's  writings  at  his  disposal. 
Morley  does  not  use  it. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1 787    95 

" great  invention,"  or  something  ''struck  off  at  a 
given  time,"  was  being  produced.  Recent  history 
was  pressing  upon  his  mind  as  a  cumulative  in 
fluence,  and  was  furnishing  the  convention  material 
with  which  to  construct  a  government. 

The  first  fact  in  this  recent  history  was  the 
experiment  made  by  the  Parliamentary  group,  and 
which  broke  down  under  the  protest  of  the  Revo 
lutionary  group.  He  must  have  been  impressed 
by  the  similarity  of  the  problem  that  the  early 
group  had,  with  the  problem  which  this  Con 
stitutional  group  had.  In  each  era  this  problem 
was  created  by  the  victorious  termination  of  a 
war.  The  treaty  in  1763,  forced  a  radical  change 
of  colonial  policy  upon  England.  The  treaty  in 
1783,  created  the  possibilities  of  empire  for  the 
young  nation  in  America,  and  compelled  a  radical 
governmental  change  in  order  to  realise  these 
possibilities.  And  it  is  not  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  great  leader  caught  the  significance  of  this 
historic  parallelism,  and  was  guided  in  some 
measure  by  it. 

The  second  fact  in  this  recent  history,  and  even 
more  important,  was  that  the  people  during  the 
Revolution,  and  apart  from  it,  had  been  making 
history  of  their  own.  In  this  history  they  had 
been  assembling  the  material  for  the  construction 


96  Washington  and  Lincoln 

of  an  imperial  government.  This  material,  now 
placed  at  the  disposal  of  Washington  and  the 
others  in  the  convention  was  fourfold. 

First,  there  was  the  material  furnished  by  the 
formation  of  the  Continental  Congress  which 
existed  from  1774  until  1781.  How  far  this 
Congress  carried  the  people  in  the  States  along 
the  pathway  toward  an  organic  union  of  the  States 
cannot  be  known.  To  what  extent  it  was  over 
shadowed  by  the  stern  realities  of  a  war  is  uncer 
tain.  But  that  it  marked  a  culminating  point  in 
a  growing  consciousness  of  unity  which  had  been 
going  on  for  many  years  is  beyond  doubt.  For  the 
people  it  was  the  symbol  of  a  nation.  It  accus 
tomed  the  people  to  the  idea  of  general  as  distinct 
from  local  power,  although  the  people  would  have 
insisted  that  there  was  no  power  save  as  it  was 
local.  But  whatever  the  theory  might  be,  the 
fact  was,  that  the  Congress,  under  certain  limita 
tions,  exercised  the  powers  of  a  sovereign  state, 
even  though  these  powers  were  only  temporarily 
exercised. 

Second,  there  was  the  material  furnished  by  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  which,  strictly  speaking, 
constitute  the  first  constitution  of  the  United 
States.  From  1781  until  1787,  these  "Articles" 
were  thoroughly  tested,  and  found  inadequate  to 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787    97 

meet  the  "  exigencies  of  the  Union."  The  reason 
for  this,  as  noted  elsewhere,  was  the  absence  of  a 
coercive  power.  But  although  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  as  thus  tested  proved  inadequate, 
they  made  one  significant  contribution  to  govern 
mental  theory,  which  was  used  in  the  convention 
of  1787.  This  was  the  definition  made  of  inter 
state  citizenship,  by  which  the  citizens  in  one  State 
were  to  have  all  the  rights  given  to  citizens  in 
any  State. x 

Third,  there  was  the  material  furnished  by  the 
creation  of  a  national  domain. 2  The  fundamental 
expression  of  this  was  in  the  ordinance  under  which 
the  North-west  territory  was  organised,  which  was 
adopted  in  the  year  in  which  the  Federal  conven 
tion  assembled.  To  Maryland  belongs  the  credit 
for  exerting  the  most  telling  influence,  which  in 
turn  led  to  this  imperial  enactment  by  a  nation 
scarcely  conscious  of  its  imperial  destiny.  For  at 
a  critical  time  when  a  general  government  was 
imperatively  needed,  Maryland  stood  firm,  and 
refused  to  adopt  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
unless  the  States  relinquished  their  claims  to  the 
western  land.3  By  successfully  insisting  upon 


*  Articles  of  Confederation,  Art.  iv.,  Section  I. 

•  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  ix.,  p.  807. 
» Ibid.,  vol.  xiv.f  pp,  619-622. 


98  Washington  and  Lincoln 

this  condition,  the  national  domain  was  created.1 
And  in  creating  this  domain  the  imagination  of  the 
people  was  appealed  to.  As  in  the  days  before 
the  Revolution  the  people's  imagination  was 
touched  by  the  existence  of  a  vast  domain,  so  in 
the  days  following  the  Revolution  the  imagination 
of  the  people  was  kindled  by  the  fact  that  this 
domain  had  become  national.  In  1787,  common 
ownership  in  lands  was  a  term  to  conjure  with. 

Fourth,  there  was  the  material  furnished  in  the 
constitutions  adopted  by  the  States,  through  the 
use  of  constituent  conventions.  These  consti 
tutions  were  more  readily  accepted  by  the  people 
than  the  Federal  Constitution  later,  because  in 
them  they  supposed  they  had  found  instruments 
with  which  to  defend  themselves  against  the 
encroachments  of  government.  This  idea  of  a 
written  constitution  was  borrowed  from  the  French 
political  philosophers,  although  the  application 
of  the  idea  was  first  made  in  America. 

But  if  the  idea  of  a  written  constitution  as  a 
weapon  of  defence  was  borrowed  from  the  French, 

'This  fact  impressed  De  Tocqueville  fifty  years  later.  He 
says:  "If  America  ever  approached  (for  however  brief  a  time) 
that  lofty  pinnacle  of  glory  to  which  the  fancy  of  its  inhabitants 
is  wont  to  point,  it  was  the  solemn  moment  at  which  the  power  of 
the  nation  abdicated,  as  it  were,  the  empire  of  the  land. "  Democ 
racy  in  America,  Bigelow  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  107. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787    99 

much  that  was  embodied  in  the  application  of 
the  idea  was  taken  from  the  English.  As  a  writer 
on  constitutional  law  says :  "The  best  epitomes  of 
the  reformed  English  constitution  ever  written  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Bills  of  Rights  of  our  first  state 
constitutions,  drafted  by  men  who  knew  perfectly 
what  rights  were  fundamental  at  that  time."1 
And  by  the  "reformed  English  constitution'* 
the  writer  of  course  means  the  Great  Charter  as 
modified  by  the  Revolutions  of  1640  and  1688. 

However,  the  early  State  constitutions  differed 
from  the  English  in  two  particulars.  First,  they 
went  further  in  the  enumeration  of  the  rights  of 
the  individual.  They  enumerate  the  right  of 
religious  liberty,  of  freedom  of  the  press,  of  as 
sembling,  and  of  free  movement.  These  are  not 
found  in  the  English  constitution.  Second,  they 
found  another  basis  for  the  rights  of  the  individual. 
In  the  English,  the  individual  comes  into  his 
rights  through  the  state.  But  in  the  American, 
"all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  indepen 
dent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which, 
when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society,  they 
cannot,  by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  their 
posterity."2  This  conception  of  the  rights  of  the 

1  Hannis Taylor,  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  American  Constitution, 
p.  369.  3  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights,  of  1776,  Section  I. 


ioo         Washington  and  Lincoln 

individual  came  to  them,  as  was  suggested  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  from  the  religious  conceptions 
of  the  people,  derived  from  the  Reformation,  and 
expressed  in  ecclesiastical  institutions.  Where  men 
protest  in  "the  name  of  the  eternal  laws  of  man's 
being, "  it  is  time  to  look  elsewhere  than  in  books 
or  musty  parchments.  Jellinek  is  indeed  justified 
in  saying  that  a  "  deep  cleft  separates  the  American 
declarations  from  the  English  enactments."1 

But  interesting  as  is  the  question  of  the  philoso 
phy  of  government  expressed  in  the  State  constitu 
tions,  it  was  not  the  question  uppermost  in  the  mind 
of  Washington  in  1787.  This  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  the  Constitution  adopted  omitted  any  men 
tion  of  a  bill  of  rights.  This  was  added  by  amend 
ment,  and  only  because  of  the  popular  demand 
that  arose  for  it.  The  question  that  pressed  upon 
him  for  answer  was  the  immediately  practical  one : 
How  to  frame  a  new  government  with  strength 
enough  to  meet  the  "exigencies  of  the  Union. " 

This  practical  question  gave  three  aspects  of 
the  State  constitutions  a  special  interest.  The 
first  was  the  fact  that  these  constitutions  were 
written,  and  as  such  were  the  first  known  to 
history.  The  second  was  the  method  of  their  adop 
tion,  by  constituent  conventions  in  some  States. 

1  Jellinek,  Rights  of  Man  and  of  Citizens,  p.  46. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  101 

The  third  was  the  contents  of  the  governments  or 
ganised  under  these  constitutions.  This  third  was 
undoubtedly  the  aspect  that  most  interested  him. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  Washington  fram 
ing  the  argument  as  regards  national  relations 
as  men  to-day  frame  the  argument  as  regards  in 
ternational  relations.  To-day,  men  say  that  if 
the  States  have  their  separate  constitutions  under 
which  their  affairs  are  adjusted,  and  if  all  the 
States  have  a  common  constitution  under  which 
affairs  concerning  all  the  people  in  the  States  may 
be  adjusted,  why  not  an  international  constitution 
for  the  adjustment  of  affairs  between  the  nations? 
In  1787,  Washington  with  other  thoughtful  men 
argued,  that  if  the  town  meetings  of  Massachu 
setts  can  frame  a  government  with  power  as 
expressed  in  a  written  constitution,  why  cannot  the 
States  frame  a  general  government  with  power 
also  expressed  in  a  written  constitution?  The 
question  was  answered  by  working  from  the  parts 
to  the  whole,  and  the  parts  were  borrowed  in  order 
to  make  the  whole.  And  because  of  this,  students 
are  justified  in  saying,  that  the  adoption  of  the 
constitutions  by  the  States  is  the  distinctive  fea 
ture  in  the  Revolutionary  era.1 


1  There  is  a  thorough  discussion  of  this  in  Bryce,  American 
Commonwealth,  vol.  i.,  part  2. 


102          Washington  and  Lincoln 

With  this  portrayal  of  Washington  meeting  with, 
and  exerting  a  commanding  influence  over  the 
men  in  this  era,  together  with  the  thoughts  that 
influenced  his  thinking,  let  us  now  consider  the 
central  problem  in  this  period,  as  revealed  in  the 
convention's  debates,  and  the  solution  offered  in 
its  product,  namely,  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

First,  granting  that  power  was  needed  in  the 
general  government,  where  and  how  should  it  be 
lodged?  The  question  was  not  whether  there 
should  be  any  power  in  government,  for  at  this 
time  there  was  plenty.  Washington  writing  to 
David  Stuart,  July  I,  1787  said:  "Persuaded  I 
am,  that  the  primary  cause  of  all  our  disorder  lies 
in  the  different  state  governments,  and  in  the 
tenacity  of  that  power  which  pervades  the  whole 
of  their  systems. ' ' '  The  experience  of  the  genera 
tions  had  taught  the  people  the  need  and  use  of 
power,  even  though  they  were  disposed  to  accept 
Paine's  theory  that  government  was  a  necessary 
evil.  But  while  there  was  abundance  of  power  in 
government,  yet  it  was  localised  in  the  States 
forming  the  Union,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  central 
power  in  the  Union  formed  by  the  States. 

To  be  sure,  the  people  after  the  Declaration  of 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  160. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1 787  103 

Independence,  believed  that  the  nation  was  some 
thing  more  than  the  sum  total  of  the  thirteen 
States.  The  willingness  of  the  States  to  surrender 
title  to  the  western  lands  for  the  creation  of  a 
national  domain  was  evidence  of  this.  But  to 
express  it  in  the  form  of  a  paradox,  they  were 
willing  to  recognise  something  which  they  did 
not  admit.  They  were  suspicious  of  any  scheme  of 
government  that  permitted  the  power  to  pass 
beyond  local  control. 

So  when  the  nation  was  given  form  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  power  in  two  vital 
particulars  was  withheld,  namely,  the  power  to 
tax  and  the  power  to  regulate  commerce.  In 
other  words,  a  government  might  be  formed  which 
was  general  in  scope,  but  its  power  must  be  local. 
They  had  won  their  independence  by  insisting 
that  power  in  the  parts  of  the  empire  was  co-ordi 
nate,  as  distinct  from  the  contention  that  power 
in  one  part  was  absolute. 

Having  rejected  the  theory  of  absolute  power 
in  the  whole  of  the  old  empire,  as  lodged  at  the 
centre,  the  question  of  the  distribution  of  power  in 
the  parts  of  the  new  empire  awaited  an  answer. 
An  empire  could  not  long  exist  and  expand  with 
power  only  in  the  parts.  Some  sort  of  imperial 
control  must  be  established,  which  would  at  once 


104         Washington  and  Lincoln 

retain  the  results  of  the  protest  made,  and  at  the 
same  time  meet  the  conditions  following  the  pro 
test. 

To  accomplish  this,  power  must  be  so  lodged  as 
to  reconcile  the  local  liberty  of  the  States,  with  a 
central  authority  over  the  people  in  the  States. 
And  it  was  not  merely  the  question  of  lodging 
power  in  the  whole,  but  also,  the  more  difficult 
question  of  how  so  to  lodge  it,  as  not  to  destroy  the 
power  in  the  parts.  And  to  realize  this,  the  States 
must  relinquish  some  power.  For  as  Madison  said : 
"An  individual  independence  of  the  states  is  utterly 
irreconcilable  with  an  aggregate  sovereignty."1 

It  needs  to  be  remembered,  that  the  men 
who  came  together  and  asked  the  States  to  sur 
render  some  power,  namely,  that  of  taxation  and 
control  of  commerce,  did  so  for  the  sake  of  the 
States.  They  were  not  at  this  time,  primarily 
citizens  of  an  indefinite,  yet  in  a  sense,  real  nation, 
but  citizens  of  the  States  forming  the  nation.  The 
States  were  in  jeopardy.  They  were  in  danger  of 
losing  the  respect  of  the  world  through  the  failure 
to  pay  their  debts  which  had  been  contracted  by 
them  when  acting  as  a  nation.  Their  commerce 
was  being  injured  by  the  nations  of  Europe,  which 
nations  could  attack  this  commerce,  as  a  united 

1  Writings  of  Jamas  Madison,  Hunt  Ed.f  vol  ii.,  p.  337. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  105 

army  attacks  and  defeats  detached  portions  of  the 
opposing  army.  Something  must  be  done.  Team 
work  was  needed. ' 

Washington  felt  the  importance  of  this  as 
perhaps  no  other  member  of  the  Constitutional 
group,  unless  it  be  Robert  Morris.  Eight  years  of 
war  had  been  the  tragic  school  in  which  he  had 
learned  this  lesson.  Four  years  before,  he  sud 
denly  appeared  among  the  officers  at  Newburgh, 
and  drew  "his  written  address  from  his  pocket  and 
his  spectacles  with  his  other  hand,  from  his  waist 
coat  pocket,  and  then  addressed  the  officers  in  the 
following  manner:  'Gentlemen,  you  will  permit 
me  to  put  on  my  spectacles,  for  I  have  not  only 
grown  grey,  but  almost  blind  in  the  service  of  my 
country. ' '  ' '  This  little  address, "  says  an  eye  wit 
ness,  "with  the  mode  of  and  manner  of  deliver 
ing  it,  drew  tears  from  many  of  the  officers.  "a 
But  this  little  address  was  made  to  check  a  possible 
uprising  in  the  army,  the  result  of  neglect  by  the 
civil  authorities  due  to  the  lack  of  power  in  the 
central  government. 

Often  during  the  war,  Washington  had  heard 
the  soldiers  gathered  around  the  camp-fires 


1  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  prominence  given  to  this  in  The 
Federalist. 

2  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  x.,  p.  170,  note. 


io6         Washington  and  Lincoln 

offer  the  toast,  "Another  hoop  for  the  barrel  or 
more  cement  for  the  Union. " x  And  had  he  been 
asked  to  respond  to  this  toast,  he  would  have  said 
without  a  moment's  hesitation,  "Not  another  hoop 
for  the  barrel,  but  more  cement  for  the  Union." 
However,  had  he  been  pressed  for  a  more  definite 
answer,  as  to  how  much  more  cement  was  needed, 
he  would  have  looked  perplexed,  and  then  in  his 
simple  and  sincere  manner  have  answered,  "How 
much  more  I  do  not  know. " 

And  no  one  else  knew.  He  and  the  others  were, 
to  borrow  a  most  apt  modern  expression,  in  the 
"twilight  zone."  Where  the  power  that  gave 
local  freedom  to  the  States  ended  and  the  power 
that  gave  central  authority  to  the  Union  began 
they  did  not  know,  even  as  one  cannot  tell  in  the 
twilight  hour  where  day  ends  and  night  begins. 
Enough,  that  in  the  government  as  formed,  suffi 
cient  power  was  lodged,  as  enumerated  in  Article 
II.  section  8  of  the  Constitution  to  make  actual  a 
composite  empire ;  which  James  Wilson,  borrowing 
the  language  of  Montesquieu,  described  as  an 
"assembling  of  distinct  societies,  which,  consoli 
dated  into  a  new  body,  are  capable  of  being  in 
creased  by  the  addition  of  other  members."3 

1  Brooks,  Life  of  Knoxt  p.  170. 

a  This  description  also  used  by  Hamilton  in  Federalist  No.  9. 
See,  Montesquieu,  Spirit  of  Laws,  book  ix.,  section  i. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  107 

That  Washington  believed  such  an  empire  had 
been  formed,  is  evident  from  his  attitude  following 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  As  the  first 
President  he  made  a  visit  to  New  England.  When 
he  reached  Boston,  John  Hancock  by  a  half  dis 
guised  ruse  allowed  it  to  be  known  that  he  expected 
President  Washington  to  call  upon  him  first — thus 
suggesting  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  over  the 
Union.  But  the  recently  elected  President  would 
have  none  of  this.  And  so  John  Hancock,  pros 
perous  beyond  his  fellow  men,  loaded  with  doc 
trines  of  democracy,  suffering  with  gout,  and 
leaning  on  his  cane,  must  knock  at  the  President's 
door,  enter  and  pay  his  respects. x  A  nation  had 
come  into  real  existence.  This  nation  had  a 
President.  And  the  President  of  at  least  the  sum 
total  of  the  parts,  must  take  precedence  over  the 
Governor  of  one  of  the  parts.  Power  at  last  had 
been  lodged  in  the  Union. 

Second,  with  the  power  thus  lodged,  how  should 
it  be  expressed?  The  broad  answer  to  this  ques 
tion  was  by  law.  To  borrow  an  ancient  expression 
much  in  vogue  to-day,  it  was  to  be  a  govern 
ment  of  laws  not  men.  Article  VI  of  the  Consti 
tution  was  adopted  unanimously.  It  contains 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  pp.  444-446,  notes. 
Also,  Fisher  Ames  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  14. 


io8         Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  central  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  is 
the  hinge  on  which  the  door  of  the  composite 
government  was  hung,  and  on  which  it  has  swung 
ever  since.  It  reads: 

This  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof, 
and  all  treaties  made  or  which  shall  be  made, 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall 
be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  and  the  judges  in 
every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the 
Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. 

But  what  shall  be  enacted  into  law?  And  how 
shall  the  law  as  enacted  become  operative?  The 
Constitutional  group  said  the  law  shall  be  enacted 
in  the  spirit  of  compromise.  That  the  Constitu 
tion,  which  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land, 
was  enacted  as  the  result  of  compromise  admits  of 
no  doubt.  The  two  striking  illustrations  of  this 
are  in  Article  I  Section  2  and  3,  which  provide  for 
the  composition  of  the  Senate,  and  establishes 
representation  on  a  three-fifths  basis  for  slaves. 
It  is  useless  to  seek  for  any  logical  explanation  of 
these  provisions,  for  there  is  none.  The  Senate 
composed  of  representatives  from  the  States,  each 
State  having  equal  representation,  is  contrary  to 
the  underlying  conception  of  the  government 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  109 

formed.1  And  the  provision  for  representation 
which  included  slaves  is  impossible  of  rational 
defence.  As  James  Wilson  said  while  this  ques 
tion  was  under  consideration:  "Are  they  ad 
mitted  as  citizens?  Then  why  are  they  not  ad 
mitted  on  an  equality  with  white  citizens?  Are 
they  admitted  as  property?  Then  why  is  not 
other  property  admitted  into  the  computation?"2 
There  was  no  answer. 

How  then  explain  this  inconsistency?  The 
answer  is,  the  task  of  the  Constitutional  group  was 
not  to  make  to  order  the  best  government,  but  out 
of  the  material  at  hand  to  make  the  best  possible 
government.  Franklin  stated  this  in  his  quaint 
way  when  he  said:  "When  a  broad  table  is  to  be 
made,  and  the  edges  of  the  planks  do  not  fit,  the 
artist  takes  a  little  from  both  and  makes  a  good 
joint.  In  like  manner  here  both  sides  must  part 
with  some  of  their  demands,  in  order  that  they 
may  join  in  some  accommodating  proposition."3 

'The  theory  of  representation  in  the  Senate,  by  which  the 
States  as  distinct  from  the  People  are  represented,  does  not 
harmonise  with  the  doctrine  of  indivisibility  of  power,  residing 
in  the  People,  which  later  was  enunciated,  and  still  later  accepted 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Nation.  If  the  power  is  in  the  People,  then 
the  People  should  be  represented  on  a  proportional  basis,  in  one 
branch  as  well  as  the  other  of  Congress,  even  though  the  basis  of 
representation  in  one  branch  be  reduced. 

a  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  ».,  p.  339.      *  Ibid,  p.  280. 


no         Washington  and  Lincoln 

Here  was  the  broad  table  of  government  to  be 
made.  In  making  it  broad,  many  planks  must  be 
used.  Some  of  these  planks  were  small  States  and 
others  large  States.  Some  were  Southern  planks 
and  others  Northern  planks.  In  making  a  broad 
table  that  would  hold  together  the  planks  must 
fit.  In  order  to  make  them  fit,  a  little  must  be 
taken  from  each.  And  this  was  done.  The  small 
States  conceded  something  to  the  large  States  in 
the  proportional  representation  in  the  lower  House. 
The  large  States  conceded  something  to  the  small 
States  in  the  equal  representation  by  States  in  the 
upper  House.  The  Southern  States  yielded  some 
thing  to  the  Northern  states  in  the  proposed  Navi 
gation  Act  to  be  passed  by  Congress  under  the 
commerce  clause  in  the  Constitution.  The  North 
ern  States  yielded  something  to  the  Southern 
States  in  the  provision  on  slavery.  And  thus  the 
broad  table  of  government  was  made. 

Washington  was  in  sympathy  with  this  spirit 
of  compromise.  When  the  convention  came 
to  a  close,  he,  as  the  retiring  President,  sent  a 
letter  to  Congress  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  diffi 
culties  which  had  confronted  the  delegates,  of  the 
necessity  for  a  generous  consideration  for  common 
interests,  and  of  the  Constitution  as  the  result  of  a 
"spirit  of  amity,  and  of  that  mutual  difference 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  in 

and  concession"1  which  the  peculiarity  of  our 
political  situation  rendered  indispensable.  And 
perhaps  Washington's  position  on  this  question  of 
compromise  is  the  surest  test  of  the  greatness  of 
his  nature.  Emerging  from  a  long  military  career, 
and  having  led  the  forces  amid  conditions  in  which 
compromise  had  no  part,  he  now  quietly  takes  the 
leadership,  amid  conditions  in  which  compromise 
was  an  all-important  part. 

The  Constitutional  group  also  said,  the  law  as 
enacted  in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  shall  be  made 
operative  by  force.  But  force  may  be  either 
moral  or  physical.  In  a  government  of  laws,  the 
force  that  is  moral  is  more  effective  than  that 
which  is  physical.  The  moisture  that  falls  occa 
sionally  in  the  tumultuous  thunder  storm,  is  not 
so  much  as  that  which  falls  quietly  in  the  dew  on 
the  many  clear  nights.  And  there  is  something 
magnificent  in  the  conception  of  power  in  govern 
ment  as  it  mastered  the  minds  of  the  Constitutional 
leaders,  which,  expressed  in  law,  came  down  upon 
the  people,  gently,  yet  pervasively,  as  dew  upon 
the  grass,  the  symbol  of  which  was  the  Court  of 
Justice. 

But  these  men  were  practical  leaders.  Behind 
the  Court  of  Justice,  as  the  symbol  of  the  moral 

1  The  Federalist,  Lodge  Ed.,  p.  571. 


H2         Washington  and  Lincoln 

dignity  of  the  law,  they  placed  coercion  by  physical 
force.  As  Hamilton  said  in  one  of  the  Federalist 
papers,  " a  government  of  force  alone"  (meaning 
moral  force)  "and  without  any  coercive  power 
would  be  good,  but  such  a  system  has  no  place  but 
in  the  reveries  of  those  political  doctors  whose 
sagacity  disdains  the  admonitions  of  experimental 
science."1  And  Washington  agreed  with  Hamil 
ton  for  he  said:  "I  confess,  however,  that  my 
opinion  of  public  virtue  is  so  far  changed,  that  I 
have  my  doubts,  whether  any  system,  without  the 
means  of  coercion  in  the  sovereign,  will  enforce 
due  obedience  to  the  ordinances  of  a  general  govern 
ment;  without  which  everything  else  fails.  "2  The 
question  then  as  to  the  expression  of  power  was 
answered  by  saying,  through  law  as  enacted  in  the 
spirit  of  compromise,  and  made  operative  by  force, 
which  usually  was  moral,  and  might  be  physical. 
Third,  with  the  power  thus  lodged  and  expressed, 
from  whence  was  it  derived?  The  answer  to  this 
question  is  given  in  the  preamble  to  the  Constitu 
tion  which  says:  "We  the  people  of  the  United 
States  ...  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitu 
tion  for  the  United  States.  ' '  And  this  was  literally 
true.  The  Constitution  of  1787,  was  adopted 

1  Federalist,  28. 

3  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  133. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  113 

by  the  people,  in  conventions,  composed  of  repre 
sentatives  chosen  by  the  people,  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  the  same. 

But  this  question  of  the  derivation  of  power 
cannot  be  answered  merely  by  quoting  the  words 
in  its  preamble,  and  calling  attention  to  the  method 
of  its  adoption,  or  even  by  going  further,  and  point 
ing  out  the  provisions  in  the  instrument  for  its 
amendment  by  the  people.  This  is  the  orthodox 
argument  in  support  of  the  assertion  that  the 
Constitution  gives  us  a  government  with  power 
derived  from  the  people.  Or  to  use  an  expression 
found  in  national  political  platforms,  the  Constitu 
tion  is  the  form,  of  which  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  is  the  spirit.  However,  there  is  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  many  students  of  govern 
ment  to-day,  to  question  the  accuracy  of  this 
argument.  They  are,  as  it  were,  the  "Higher 
Critics"  of  governmental  theory  in  American  his 
tory.  And  the  argument  is  a  strong  one,  and  runs 
something  like  this : 

The  reason  for  changing  the  government  from 
one  of  the  States  as  in  the  Confederation,  to  one  of 
the  people  in  the  States,  as  in  the  Constitution,  was 
not  that  thereby  the  people  might  have  more  in 
fluence  in  the  government,  but  that  a  stronger  cen 
tral  government  might  be  formed.  It  was  power 


H4         Washington  and  Lincoln 

at  the  centre  that  was  in  the  minds  of  the  framers. 
And  those  who  opposed  the  Constitution  so  under 
stood  it,  as  seen  in  Patrick  Henry's  words  in  the 
Virginia  convention  when  having  Washington  in 
mind  he  said:  "I  have  the  highest  veneration  for 
those  gentlemen ;  but,  sir,  give  me  leave  to  demand, 
what  right  had  they  to  say,  We,  the  People?  My 
political  curiosity,  exclusive  of  my  anxious  solici 
tude  for  the  public  welfare,  leads  me  to  ask,  who 
authorised  them  to  speak  the  language  of  We,  the 
People,  instead  of,  We  the  States?"1 

In  support  of  the  argument,  attention  is 
called  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  great  leaders 
of  the  democratic  movement  were  absent  from 
this  convention.  In  addition  to  Patrick  Henry, 
who  bitterly  opposed  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  it  is  known  that  Sam  Adams  gave  to  it  but 
luke-warm  support,  and  finally  voted  in  the  Massa 
chusetts  convention  for  its  adoption  as  the  lesser 
of  two  evils.  And  Jefferson,  who  was  in  France 
at  this  time,  was  indulging  in  political  theories  the 
opposite  of  those  written  into  this  document.2 
When  the  influence  of  these  men  in  the  Revolution 
ary  period  is  remembered,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that, 

1  Elliott's  Debates,  vol.  in,  p.  22. 

a  "I  hold  that  a  little  rebellion  now  and  then  is  a  good  thing, 
and  as  necessary  in  the  political  world  as  storms  in  the  physical. " 
Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  362. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  115 

had  they  been  members  of  the  Constitutional 
convention,  they  would  have  given  to  it  a  more 
democratic  flavour. 

Another  argument  is  found  in  the  language  used 
in  the  debates  of  the  convention  by  those  who 
framed  the  Constitution.  A  different  political 
vocabulary  from  that  of  the  Revolutionary  era  is 
used.  As  the  debates  during  the  long  summer  of 
1787,  are  read  to-day,  the  distinct  impression  is 
made  upon  the  mind,  that  the  majority  of  the 
delegates  were  not  interested  primarily  in  a  pro 
gressive  government  of  the  people,  but  rather,  in  a 
stable  government  by  the  use  of  the  people.  Much 
is  said  about  safeguarding  property  and  the  ex 
cesses  of  democracy.  Sprinkled  over  the  pages  of 
Madison's  Journal,  are  such  expressions  as  these: 
"He — had  been  taught  by  experience  the  danger 
of  the  levelling  spirit. "  "The  people  should  have 
as  little  to  do  as  may  be  about  government." 
"The  Senate  should  be  as  strong  a  likeness  to  the 
British  House  of  Lords  as  possible. "  "He  was  of 
the  opinion — that  the  British  government  was  the 
best  in  the  world."  "A  government  which  was 
instituted  principally  for  the  protection  of  property 
and  was  itself  to  be  supported  by  property. " 

This  argument,  based  upon  the  attitude  of  the 
members  as  revealed  in  the  debates  during  the 


n6         Washington  and  Lincoln 

convention,  is  strengthened  by  the  position  taken 
by  individual  members  following  the  convention. 
This  is  illustrated  in  two  ways.  The  usual  illus 
tration  is  in  the  papers  written  by  Hamilton, 
Madison,  and  Jay  in  The  Federalist,  in  the  weeks 
following  adjournment.  These  papers  have  been 
highly  praised.  The  most  superlative  praise  is 
that  given  by  Marshall.  There  is,  however,  a 
tendency  to  make  too  much  of  these  papers  as  a 
revelation  of  the  minds  of  those  who  wrote  the 
Constitution.  Many  of  the  misconceptions  regard 
ing  the  original  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  are 
due  to  a  study  of  The  Federalist  rather  than  to  the 
debates  of  the  convention.  That  these  masterful 
papers  profoundly  influenced  the  interpretation  of 
the  Constitution  in  the  early  period  of  formation 
admits  of  no  doubt.  In  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  handed  down  in  Cohens  vs.  Virginia,  The 
Federalist  is  referred  to  in  the  following  language: 
11  It  is  a  complete  commentary  on  our  Constitution, 
and  is  appealed  to  by  all  parties  in  the  questions 
to  which  that  instrument  has  given  birth."1 
This  is  high  praise,  coming  as  it  does,  from  the 
greatest  jurist  of  our  history.  Yet  it  is  well  to 
remember  when  these  words  are  quoted,  that  they 
were  spoken  before  any  authentic  record  of  the 

1 6  Wheaton,  p.  264. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  117 

debates  in  the  convention  were  published.  A 
comparison  of  The  Federalist  with  Madison's  Jour 
nal,  shows  clearly  that  the  former  does  not  fully 
uncover  the  minds  of  those  who  wrote  the  Con 
stitution.  And  this  might  be  expected,  for  these 
papers  were  not  given  to  the  world  to  make  clear 
what  their  authors  thought  the  Constitution 
meant  at  the  time  they  voted  for  it,  but  to  show 
what  it  might  mean  to  those  who  differed  from 
them,  and  who  might  be  persuaded  to  agree  with 
them  as  to  the  wisdom  of  adopting  it.  Yet  with 
this  understanding  of  the  papers,  it  is  seen  that 
they  represent  a  distinct  change  from  the  Revolu 
tionary  period. 

The  other  illustration  is  John  Adams,  selected 
by  the  Constitutional  group  as  the  first  Vice-Presi 
dent  of  the  new  government.1  During  his  resi 
dence  in  England,  Adams  shifted  from  his  earlier 
position  in  favour  of  a  modified  democracy,  to  a 
position  in  favour  of  an  extreme  aristocracy.  This 
change  was  known  to  the  leaders  in  the  convention, 
who  doubtless  during  the  debates,  read  his  work 
entitled,  A  Defence  of  the  Constitutions  of  Cover  n- 

1  Merriam,    American   Political    Theory,   pp.    122-141.     The 

chapter  in  this  work,  entitled  "The  Reactionary  Movement," 
would  be  stronger  as  an  argument,  were  more  attention  given  to 
the  debates  in  the  convention,  and  to  the  Constitution  itself, 
and  less  relatively  to  Adams  and  The  Federalist. 


n8         Washington  and  Lincoln 

ments  of  the  United  States,  which  was  written  in 
reply  to  the  French  statesman,  Turgot,  and  pub 
lished  in  1787.  And  knowing  of  these  views,  and 
at  the  same  time  desirous  of  selecting  a  man  in 
sympathy  with  the  Constitution  as  they  understood 
it,  they  turned  to  John  Adams. 

But  the  strongest  argument  is  that  of  the 
Constitution  itself.  The  words,  "We  the  people 
of  the  United  States, "  are  but  as  the  words  of  the 
title  to  a  book.  And  as  sometimes  the  title  is 
ambiguous,  so  with  these  words.  The  method  by 
which  the  Constitution  was  adopted  might  be 
democratic,  but  the  Constitution,  as  adopted  was 
not.  The  reader  may  start  with  the  preamble, 
but  by  the  time  he  has  finished  reading  the  seven 
Articles  of  the  Constitution,  the  simple  democratic 
charm  of  the  words,  "We  the  people"  is  gone. 
The  reason  for  this  is,  that  in  the  Constitution  a 
government  is  formed  according  to  the  theory  of 
checks  and  balances.  And  as  the  reader  seeks  a 
reason  for  this,  he  can  find  but  one,  namely,  as  a 
restraint  upon  the  popular  will. x 

In  the  State  governments  at  this  time,  there  was 
provision  for  the  executive,  legislative,  and  judi- 

1  What  Merriam's  chapter  lacks  is  supplied  by  J.  Allan  Smith's, 
The  Spirit  of  American  Government — a  disturbing,  thought-provok 
ing,  able  little  book,  that  must  be  reckoned  with. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  119 

cial  departments.  But  in  the  actual  working  of 
these  governments,  the  emphasis  was  placed  upon 
the  legislative,  that  is,  upon  that  part  of  the  gov 
ernment  most  responsive  to  the  will  of  the  people. 
As  Madison  said,  referring  to  the  State  govern 
ments:  "Experience  has  proved  a  tendency  in  our 
government  to  throw  all  power  into  the  legislative 
vortex. "  *  In  the  government  formed  by  the  Con 
stitution,  the  least  emphasis  is  placed  upon  the 
legislative,  and  the  most  upon  the  judicial.  That 
is,  the  most  emphasis  is  placed  upon  that  part  of 
the  government  furthest  removed  from  the  people. 
Further,  in  order  to  make  clear  the  distrust 
of  the  people,  when  dividing  the  legislative  into 
two  branches,  the  upper  branch,  namely  the  Senate 
which  is  much  less  representative  than  the  House, 
is  given  more  power,  as  seen  in  the  treaty-making 
and  judicial  appointing  functions.  Is  it  any  won 
der  then,  that  Richard  Henry  Lee  in  studying  the 
draft  of  the  Constitution,  as  it  came  from  the 
convention  said:  "The  only  check  to  be  found  in 
favour  of  the  democratic  principle  in  this  system 
is  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  I  believe, 
may  justly  be  called  a  mere  shred  or  rag  of  repre 
sentation.  "2 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  382. 
1  Elliott's  Debates,  vol.  i.,  p.  503. 


120         Washington  and  Lincoln 

But  what  was  Washington's  position  at  this 
time?  Did  he  have  as  much  confidence  in  the 
capacity  of  the  people  for  government  as  he  had  in 
1776,  when  he  commended  the  "sound  doctrine" 
of  Tom  Paine's  pamphlet,  entitled  Common  Sense? 
At  no  time  during  his  long  career,  is  his  silence 
more  aggravating  than  during  the  weeks  of  the 
convention.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know 
what  thoughts  wandered  through  his  mind,  as  he 
presided  over  the  deliberations,  and  listened  to 
the  statements  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  Elbridge 
Gerry,  Roger  Sherman,  Alexander  Hamilton,  John 
Dickinson,  and  the  Pinckneys,  as  they  denounced 
democracy,  insisted  upon  property  as  the  chief 
concern  of  society,  or  pronounced  encomiums  upon 
the  British  House  of  Lords.  Only  once  during 
the  convention  did  he  express  himself  on  a  question 
of  government,  and  then  to  recommend  increasing 
the  representation  in  the  lower  House,  by  decreas 
ing  the  basis  from  forty  to  thirty  thousand. '  A 
momentary  gleam  of  democracy,  but  only  a  gleam. 

His  real  attitude  is  probably  revealed  in  the 
fact,  that  after  the  close  of  the  convention,  having 
signed  the  Constitution,  he  returned  to  Virginia 
and  did  what  he  could  for  its  adoption.  And 
Alexander  Donald  writing  to  Jefferson  late  in  1787 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  ii.f  p.  397. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  121 

says :  "  I  stayed  two  days  with  General  Washington 
at  Mt.  Vernon  ...  I  never  saw  him  as  keen  for 
anything  in  my  life  as  he  is  for  the  adoption  of  the 
new  scheme  of  government. " x 

The  answer  to  the  question,  as  to  the  derivation 
of  power,  is  then  in  "We,  the  people. "  But  these 
words,  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  a  con 
servative  reaction  from  the  democracy  of  the 
Revolutionary  period.  Washington  believed  that 
the  nation  was  like  the  traveller  on  the  strange 
road,  who  coming  to  a  fork,  takes  the  wrong  road 
and  discovering  his  mistake,  retraces  his  steps 
until  he  reaches  the  right  road,  along  which  he 
travels  until  his  destination  is  reached. 

Fourth,  under  a  government  thus  formed,  with 
power  lodged  at  the  centre,  expressed  through 
law,  and  derived  in  a  modified  sense  from  the 
people,  what  was  the  danger  of  abuse,  if  any?  The 
answer  of  the  Constitutional  leaders  was,  slavery. 
The  large  amount  of  space  in  the  records  of  the 
debates,  together  with  the  character  of  the  dis 
cussions  makes  this  clear. 

Slavery  did  not  come  before  the  convention  as  a 
new  subject,  the  result  of  changed  conditions.  It 
came  as  an  old  question,  which  now  had  assumed 
such  proportions,  that  it  could  not  be  kept  out  of 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,   vol.  xi.,  p.  142. 


122         Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  convention.  In  1776,  when  Jefferson  presented 
the  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence,  there  was  a  clause  which  denounced  slavery, 
and  placed  the  responsibility  for  its  existence  upon 
King  George.  In  the  final  draft  as  adopted  by  the 
Congress,  all  mention  of  slavery  was  omitted. 
Jefferson  explains  this  by  saying  in  his  notes  on  the 
debate,  that  the  clause  "was  struck  out  in  com 
plaisance  to  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  which 
had  never  attempted  to  restrain  the  importation  of 
slaves,  and  who  on  the  contrary  still  wished  to 
continue  it."  Then  he  adds,  "Our  Northern 
brethren  also,  I  believe,  felt  a  little  tender  under 
those  censures:  for  though  their  people  have  very 
few  slaves  themselves,  yet  they  had  been  pretty 
considerable  carriers  of  them  to  others."1  And 
so  slavery  received  no  attention  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence. 

In  the  same  year,  when  John  Dickinson  pre 
sented  the  original  draft  of  the  Articles  of  Confed 
eration,  the  eleventh  article  placed  taxation  for 
the  purposes  of  the  general  government  upon  the 
basis  of  population.  This  raised  the  question 
whether  slaves  were  human  beings,  or  property, 
such  as  sheep,  which  called  forth  the  significant 
remark  of  Franklin  during  the  debate,  "that 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  vi.f  p.  1693. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  123 

slaves  rather  weaken  than  strengthen  the  States, 
and  there  is  therefore  some  difference  between 
them  and  sheep ;  sheep  will  never  make  any  insur 
rections.  " I  But  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
as  finally  adopted  in  1781,  the  basis  of  taxation 
was  shifted  from  population  to  land,  and  so  again 
the  question  failed  to  receive  formal  attention. 2 

However,  in  1787,  the  Constitutional  group 
returned  to  the  theory  of  John  Dickinson  in  the 
original  draft  of  the  Articles,  and  based  taxation 
upon  population.  This  again  raised  the  question 
of  slavery,  and  as  has  been  mentioned  elsewhere, 
resulted  in  a  compromise  by  which  in  the  enumera 
tion,  slaves  were  to  be  counted  on  a  three-fifths 
basis.  Thus  slavery  at  last  received  formal  atten 
tion  in  one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the  greatest 
document  of  the  'American  nation.  It  came  into 
government  by  the  side  door  as  it  were,  in  con 
nection  with  the  question  of  taxation  and  repre 
sentation.  Slaves  were  thus  three-fifths  human. 
However,  it  also  came  in  by  the  front  door  of 
government,  in  Article  ix,  Section  9  of  the  Con 
stitution,  which  forbade  the  prohibition  of  the 
importation  of  slaves  before  the  year  1808,  and 

1  Journals  of  Congress,  vol.  vi.,  p.  1080. 

8  Article  xi.  in  the  original  draft  is  changed  to  Article  viii.  in 
final  draft.  Compare  vol.  v.,  p.  548  of  Journals  of  Congress  with 
vol.  ix.,  p.  913. 


124         Washington  and  Lincoln 

authorised  a  tax  of  ten  dollars  on  each  one 
imported.  And  thus  slaves  were  property. 

Of  course  here  was  a  situation  which  the  Consti 
tutional  leaders  did  not  understand.  They  be 
lieved  that  progress  in  government  was  possible 
only  through  compromise,  but  they  did  not  realise 
the  tremendous  price  which  would  be  paid  for  this 
progress. 

There  was  some  sentiment  against  slavery  on 
moral  grounds.  Gouverneur  Morris  said:  "He 
would  never  concur  in  upholding  domestic  slavery. 
It  was  a  nefarious  institution.  It  was  the  curse  of 
heaven  on  the  States  where  it  prevailed. " x  But 
this  statement  of  the  young  enthusiast,  was  very 
much  weakened  by  the  suggestion  he  made  to  the 
effect,  that  he  "wished  the  whole  subject  to  be 
committed,  including  the  clauses  relating  to  taxes 
on  exports,  and  to  a  navigation  act.  These  things 
may  form  a  bargain  among  the  Northern  and 
Southern  States."2  And  there  was  sentiment 
against  the  prevailing  view  that  slaves  were  prop 
erty.  Roger  Sherman  opposed  the  clause  author 
ising  the  laying  of  a  tax  on  slaves  imported, 
"because/*  as  he  said,  "it  implied  that  they  were 
property."3 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  112. 

» Ibid,  p.  224.  3  Ibid,  p.  224. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  125 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  the  exact  position 
of  the  members  on  this  question.  Some  who  were 
personally  opposed  to  slavery,  objected  to  a  Con 
stitutional  provision,  claiming  that  it  was  a  ques 
tion  for  the  States,  not  for  the  nation  to  decide. 
Some  were  influenced  in  favour  of  a  clause  prohib 
iting  further  importation  of  slaves,  because  of  the 
conditions  of  their  States.  Maryland  and  Vir 
ginia  at  this  time  were  overstocked  with  slaves. 
All  were  probably  in  agreement  that  slavery  would 
finally  disappear  if  time  was  allowed  to  do  its  work. 
Even  Charles  Pinckney  from  the  far  Southern 
State  of  South  Carolina  expressed  this  view,  for  he 
argued  that,  "If  the  States  be  all  left  at  liberty  on 
this  subject,  South  Carolina  may  perhaps  by 
degrees  do  of  herself  what  is  wished,  as  Virginia 
and  Maryland  already  have  done. >>x 

Especially  is  it  difficult  to  determine  the 
exact  position  of  Washington  on  this  question. 
It  is  a  fact,  that  he  approved  this  Constitution, 
which  gave  a  negative  recognition  of  slavery,  in 
its  clause  for  a  three-fifths  representation  for  a 
slave ;  the  owner,  not  the  slave,  securing  the  politi 
cal  advantage  of  such  vote;  and  an  affirmative 
recognition  of  slavery,  in  extending  by  twenty 
years  the  period  of  importation  and  authorising  a 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  219. 


126         Washington  and  Lincoln 

tax  upon  the  slave  as  property.  It  is  also  a  fact 
that  Washington  was  himself  an  owner  of  slaves. 

But  over  against  these  facts  are  two  others. 
One  is,  that  when  the  resolution  was  presented  in 
favour  of  extending  the  time  of  importation,  the 
Virginia  delegation  of  which  Washington  was  a 
member  and  with  which,  (even  though  presiding 
officer)  he  voted,  cast  its  unanimous  vote  against 
the  resolution. I  Madison  said  at  the  time : 
''Twenty  years  will  produce  all  the  mischief 
that  can  be  apprehended  from  the  liberty  to 
import  slaves.  So  long  a  term  will  be  more  dis 
honourable  to  the  national  character  than  to  say 
nothing  about  it  in  the  Constitution.  "2 

The  other  fact  is,  that  Washington  is  on  record 
against  slavery  as  an  institution.  He  said :  "I  hope 
it  will  not  be  conceived  from  these  observations 
that  it  is  my  wish  to  hold  the  unhappy  people  who 
are  the  subject  of  this  letter  in  slavery.  I  can  only 
say,  that  there  is  not  a  man  living,  who  wishes  more 
sincerely  than  I  do  to  see  a  plan  adopted  for  the 
abolition  of  it;  but  there  is  only  one  proper  and 
effectual  mode  by  which  it  can  be  accomplished, 
and  that  is  by  legislative  authority ;  and  this  as  far 
as  my  suffrage  will  go,  shall  never  be  wanting.  "3 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed. ,  vol.  ii.,  p.  251 .       *  Ibid ,  p.  250. 
^Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  25. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  127 

It  is  impossible  to  harmonise  Washington's 
views  on  slavery,  with  his  personal  action  in  keep 
ing  slaves.  But  in  this  Washington  reflected  the 
sentiment  of  his  era.  Roger  Sherman  objected  to 
the  thought  of  the  slave  as  property,  but  he  voted 
for  the  taxing  clause  in  the  Constitution  that 
treated  them  as  property.  Thomas  Jefferson  was 
sure  that  "all  men  are  created  free  and  equal," 
but  he  held  slaves  on  his  plantation.  Patrick 
Henry  was  extreme  in  his  denunciation,  but  his 
black  servants  were  too  valuable  an  asset  to  be 
dispensed  with. 

The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  Washington  and  the 
others  reached  their  conclusions  on  slavery  under 
the  influence  of  general  philosophical  theories, 
rather  than  with  intense  and  practical  moral  con 
victions.  He  knew  that  slavery  was  an  abuse  of 
power  in  government.  But  this  abuse  after  all, 
was  like  a  black  cloud  in  the  distance  on  a  sum 
mer's  night,  which  rumbles,  and  flashes  light,  but 
being  in  the  distance,  its  rains  do  not  drench 
or  its  lightenings  strike.  Later,  the  cloud  came 
nearer. 

Such  were  the  answers  given  by  the  Constitu 
tional  group,  with  Washington  as  its  commanding 
personality,  to  the  question  of  power  in  govern 
ment.  In  stating  the  answers,  the  aim  has  been 


128         Washington  and  Lincoln 

to  do  so  with  caution  and  reserve,  implying 
thereby  that  the  answers  were  not  given  in  1787, 
with  dogmatic  certainty,  but  as  hopeful,  yet  tenta 
tive  affirmations,  which  for  verification  awaited 
the  verdict  of  time. 

There  is  a  bit  of  gossip  which  has  come  down, 
and  which  illustrates  the  mental  attitude  of  the 
men  who  framed  the  government.  The  great 
leader  has  been  elected  President.  March  4,  1 789, 
is  the  day  appointed  for  the  First  Congress  to  meet. 
On  this  day,  only  a  handful  of  men  are  gathered. 
Not  until  April  5th  do  enough  members  assemble 
to  constitute  a  quorum  and  organise  both  branches. 
The  President  elect  away  in  his  Southern  home 
becomes  uneasy.  What  does  this  mean?  Is  the 
slowness  of  assembling  due  to  a  lack  of  interest  in 
the  new  government?  Is  the  formulated  plan  a 
failure  before  it  is  tried?  At  last  word  reaches 
him  that  April  3Oth  has  been  set  as  the  day  for  the 
inauguration.  He  starts  north  and  on  the  ap 
pointed  day  draws  near  to  New  York.  Congress 
is  in  session  in  the  recently  completed  City  Hall 
at  the  corner  of  Nassau  and  Wall  streets.  The 
booming  of  the  cannon  announces  that  the  General 
has  crossed  the  North  River  from  New  Jersey  and 
will  soon  reach  the  hall.  The  question  arises, 
How  shall  the  President  elect  be  received?  Shall 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  129 

it  be  standing  or  sitting?  John  Adams  is  much 
excited.  "Gentlemen,"  he  said  with  a  nervous 
air,  "I  wish  for  the  directions  of  the  Senate.  The 
President  will,  I  suppose,  address  the  Congress. 
How  shall  I  behave?  How  shall  I  receive  it? 
Shall  it  be  standing  or  sitting?"  A  member  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  English  Parlia 
ment  the  members  stand  when  the  King  enters. 
Another  member  takes  exception  to  this,  saying, 
that  as  they  had  thrown  off  the  yoke  of  monarchy, 
all  its  customs  should  be  abandoned.  While  they 
are  discussing  the  question,  the  door  opens ;  Wash 
ington  enters,  walks  down  the  aisle,  bowing  to  the 
right  and  left,  and  reaching  the  platform  takes  his 
seat.1 

Only  a  bit  of  gossip  suggestive  of  the  condi 
tions  of  the  nation.  A  stronger  government  had 
been  formed.  How  would  the  people  behave? 
How  would  they  receive  it?  Would  it  be  standing 
or  sitting?  Washington  himself  did  not  know,  for 
on  the  day  the  convention  closed  he  wrote  Lafay 
ette  and  said:  "It  is  the  result  of  four  months' 
deliberation.  It  is  now  a  child  of  fortune  to  be 
fostered  by  some  and  buffeted  by  others.  What 
will  be  the  general  opinion  or  reception  of  it  is  not 

1  Writings  of   Washington,  Ford   Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  380,  note. 
Also,  Bassett,  The  Federalist  System,  pp.  7-12. 

9 


130         Washington  and  Lincoln 

for  me  to  decide,  nor  shall  I  say  anything  for  or 
against  it.  If  it  be  good,  I  suppose  it  will  work 
its  way;  if  bad,  it  will  recoil  on  its  framers. " x 

And  so,  to  bring  the  study  of  this  period  to  a 
close,  it  may  be  said  that  the  key- word  is  formula 
tion,  even  as  the  key-word  in  the  Revolutionary 
period  was  protestation.  The  task  of  this  era  is, 
how  to  formulate  a  theory  of  power  in  govern 
ment,  that  will  be  an  improvement  upon  the  one 
against  which  they  had  protested,  and  which  at 
the  same  time  will  make  permanent  that  which 
they  gained  as  the  result  of  the  protest.  The 
group  of  1787  performs  this  task  in  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States;  which  creates  a  compos 
ite  empire,  republican  in  form;  with  a  distribu 
tion  of  power  lodged  in  the  parts,  and  at  the 
centre,  derived  from  the  people,  and  expressed 
by  law. 

"  I  was  present  in  the  pew  with  the  President,  and 
must  assure  you  that  after  making  all  deductions  for 
the  delusion  of  one's  fancy  in  regard  to  characters,  I 
still  think  of  him  with  more  veneration  than  any 
other  person.  Time  has  made  havoc  upon  his  face. 
That,  and  many  other  circumstances  not  to  be  reas 
oned  about,  conspire  to  keep  up  the  awe  I  brought 
with  me.  He  addressed  the  two  Houses  in  the 
Senate  Chamber;  it  was  a  very  touching  scene  and 

Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ».,  p.  153,  note. 


The  Constitutional  Group  of  1787  131 

quite  of  the  solemn  kind.  His  aspect  grave,  almost 
to  sadness;  his  modesty  actually  shaking;  his  voice 
deep,  a  little  tremulous,  and  so  low  as  to  call  for  deep 
attention ;  added  to  a  series  of  objects  presented  to 
the  mind,  and  overwhelming  it,  produced  emotions 
of  the  most  affecting  kind  upon  the  members.  I, 
Pelgarlic,  sat  entranced.  It  seemed  to  me  an  allegory 
in  which  Virtue  was  personified,  and  addressing  those 
whom  she  would  make  her  votaries.  Her  power  over 
the  heart  was  never  greater,  and  the  illustration  of 
her  doctrine  by  her  own  example  was  never  more 
perfect." — May  3,  1789.  Fisher  Ames,  Works,  vol. 
i-»  P-  34- 


^ 


The  National  Group  of  1830 ' 

FORTY  and  more  years  have  passed  since  the 
members  of  the  convention  signed  their  names  to 
the  Constitution,  "in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
Union. "  From  the  loins  of  the  nation  a  new 
brood  has  come  forth,  which  in  the  maturity  of  its 
powers,  has  the  task  of  defining  a  more  complex 
Union.  In  this  brood  are  such  men  as  Andrew 
Jackson,  the  hero  of  New  Orleans;  John  Quincy 
Adams,  the  old  man  eloquent;  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
the  statesman  of  the  frontier;  Martin  Van  Buren, 
the  little  magician  of  strategy ;  John  Randolph,  the 
political  cartoonist,  who  used  words  instead  of 
crayons;  Henry  Clay,  the  Prince  Harry  of  the 
West;  Daniel  Webster,  a  small  cathedral  in  him 
self;  Robert  Y.  Hayne,  a  strong  thinker  and 
debater,  but  overshadowed  by  a  stronger;  and 

1  The  year  1830  is  arbitrarily  selected  as  a  matter  of  con 
venience.  There  is  no  single  event  such  as  the  Treaty  of  Paris 
in  1763,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  1776,  the  Constitu 
tion  in  1787,  or  the  Inauguration  of  Lincoln  in  1861,  which 
serves  as  a  pivot  upon  which  swing  the  events  of  the  era.  1831 
might  as  well  have  been  selected. 

132 


The  National  Group  of  1830      133 

John  C.  Calhoun,  in  the  grip  of  a  great  but  mis 
taken  idea. 

The  personnel  of  this  group  is  unlike  that  of 
1787,  in  that  it  has  no  member  of  unchallenged 
leadership.  There  are  great  leaders  in  this  group, 
who  compare  favourably  in  mental  equipment 
with  Hamilton,  King,  Wilson,  and  Madison  of  the 
earlier  group. x  But  there  is  no  Washington  here. 
It  is  impossible  to  think  of  the  leaders  of  1830 
coming  together,  selecting  one  of  their  number, 
and  turning  to  him  as  did  the  leaders  in  1787, 
when  they  turned  to  the  great  Virginian,  and 
recognised  in  him  the  commanding  personality  of 
the  era. 

Again,  the  composition  of  this  group,  in  its 
representative  character,  is  more  varied  than  that 
of  the  earlier  period.  Then  the  leaders  looked 
with  distrust  upon  the  newer  sections  of  the  coun 
try.  They  were  quite  sure  that  the  welfare  of  the 
nation  depended  upon  the  superior  intelligence  of 
the  older  portions.  Said  one  of  the  convention: 
"Among  other  objections  it  must  be  apparent  they 
would  not  be  able"  (referring  to  the  West)  "to 

'With  such  leaders  at  his  elbow  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
how  De  Tocqueville  could  jot  down  in  his  note  book:  "The  race 
of  American  statesmen  has  evidently  dwindled  most  remarkably 
in  the  course  of  the  last  fifty  years." — Democracy  in  America, 
Bigelow  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  209. 


134         Washington  and  Lincoln 

furnish  men,  equally  enlightened,  to  share  in  the 
administration  of  our  common  interests/*1  The 
man  who  made  this  remark,  with  the  apparent 
approval  of  the  others,  would  have  been  sur 
prised,  had  he  been  living  in  1830,  to  see  in  the 
White  House,  a  leader  from  the  wild  frontier  of 
Tennessee,  and  as  the  acknowledged  leader  of 
Congress,  a  statesman  from  the  land  made  roman 
tic  by  the  exploits  of  Boone.  The  political  centre 
of  gravity  was  shifting. 

Another  change  is  noted,  as  the  work  of  this 
group  is  studied.  There  is  no  single  document  in 
which  the  thought  of  the  era  culminates,  as  does 
the  thought  of  the  Revolutionary  era  in  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  and  that  of  the  Constitu 
tional  era  in  the  Constitution.  The  mi-stake  must 
however,  not  be  made  of  assuming  that  the  era  is 
commonplace.  At  first  blush,  this  would  seem  to 
be  the  fact.  A  period  in  which  no  leader  towers 
above  the  others,  and  the  consensus  of  thought 
does  not  finally  result  in  some  unique  State  Paper, 
is  usually  considered  ordinary. 

But  the  student  will  not  so  interpret  these 
years.  And  the  reason  for  this  is,  that  the  condi 
tions  of  1830,  are  so  unlike  those  of  1787,  that  the 
task  of  relating  the  government  to  these  conditions, 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  i.f  p.  335. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      135 

gives  to  the  era  a  deep  meaning.  Tendencies  have 
been  at  work  since  the  Constitutional  convention 
adjourned,  which  in  the  passing  of  the  years,  form 
a  new  nation.  And  the  question  is,  Can  the  nation 
as  formed  in  one  era  under  certain  conditions,  be 
defined  in  this  era,  under  changed  conditions?1 

In  order  to  understand  this  task  of  defining  a 
more  complex  Union,  let  us  consider  some  of  the 
changed  conditions  which  make  the  Union  more 
complex.  First,  there  is  the  change  due  to  terri 
torial  expansion,  carrying  with  it  increase  in 
population.  By  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  in 
1803,  the  seizure  of  West  Florida  in  1810,  and  the 
acquisition  of  East  Florida  in  1819,  the  area  has 
increased  from  820,377  square  miles  to  1,754,622 
square  miles.  The  population  has  grown  from 
3,929,625  in  1790,  to  12,866,020  in  1830. 2 

This  doubling  of  the  area,  and  more  than 
trebling  of  the  population,  raises  the  question, 
whether  a  government  based  upon  a  Constitution 
written  a  generation  before  possesses  enough 
strength  to  reach  forth  over  this  expanding  area 
and  hold  it  together. 

1  The  writer  has  omitted  the  events  of  the  War  of  1812,  and 
those  of  the  years  immediately  following,  which  constitute  what 
Shouler  calls  the  "Era  of  Good  Feeling;"  because  they  do  not 
concern  the  thesis  of  this  study. 

2 "  A  Century  of  Population  growth,"  U.  S.  Census,  pp.  54,  55. 


136        Washington  and  Lincoln 

Some,  taking  counsel  of  their  fears,  are  quoting 
the  words  of  Montesquieu,  that  "It  is  natural  for 
a  Republic  to  have  only  a  small  territory;  other 
wise  it  cannot  long  subsist.  "x 

Others  are  reading  Hamilton's  and  Madison's 
arguments  in  The  Federalist,  in  which  they  assert 
that  the  peculiar  merit  of  the  republican  as  distinct 
from  the  democratic  form  of  government  is,  that 
it  is  adapted  to  large  areas  and  great  populations.2 

Doubtless,  the  French  historian  would  have 
been  less  cautious,  had  he  foreseen  the  composite 
empire,  republican  in  form,  which  came  into 
existence  in  1787.  And  probably  the  daring  im 
perialists  would  have  been  more  cautious,  had  they 
seen  the  vast  area  and  population  of  1830,  with 
the  fabled  god  Terminus  on  the  top  of  the  Rockies, 
and  looking  westward  to  the  Pacific.  Here  indeed 
is  a  reminder  of  the  question  of  empire  in  1763,  and 
of  the  protest  made  in  1776  against  the  answer 
given.  How  shall  imperial  control  be  extended 
over  a  vastly  increased  domain,  and  according  to 
the  system  outlined  in  the  Constitution? 

While  the  people  are  taking  counsel  of  their 
fears,  because  of  the  vast  territorial  expansion  and 

1  Montesquieu,  The  Spirit  of  Laws,  Book  viii,  section  16. 
3  Federalist,  No.  p  and  No.  10,  Hamilton  in  No.  g  quotes  Mon 
tesquieu. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      137 

increase  in  population,  another  change  comes  as 
the  result  of  the  application  of  steam  as  motive 
power.  The  leaders  of  the  nation  saw  at  an  early 
date  that  a  composite  empire  was  conditioned  upon 
physical  cohesion  as  well  as  upon  similarity  in 
government  through  federal  enactment.  A  national 
domain  might  be  created,  and  from  this  domain 
States  might  be  formed,  but  the  distance  that 
separated  this  domain  from  the  Sea-Board  States 
and  accentuated  the  intervening  mountain  ranges, 
was  great.  And  so  as  the  population  moved  into 
the  West  and  South-west  the  agitation  began  for 
roads  and  canals.  The  most  ambitious  tinder- 
taking  of  this  sort  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  govern 
ment  was  the  Cumberland  Road,  and  on  the  part 
of  a  State  government,  the  Erie  Canal. 

No  sooner,  however,  was  this  work  well  under 
way  in  the  nation  and  States  than  steam  as  a  motive 
power  is  recognised  and  applied.  It  first  appears 
in  the  steam-boat  that  plies  the  river  and  lake,  and 
later  in  the  iron  horse  that  rumbles  down  the 
metal  roadway. T  It  is  next  to  impossible  to  over 
estimate  the  influence  of  this  great  discovery  upon 

1  These  railroads  followed  instead  of  crossed  the  lines  of  lati 
tude.  The  notable  exception  to  this  was  the  Illinois  Central 
Railroad,  which  became  a  political  issue  in  the  decade  beginning 
with  1840.  The  significance  of  this  in  the  later  sectional  struggle 
is  apparent. 


138        Washington  and  Lincoln 

national  life.  The  material  prosperity  of  the 
people  is  enhanced,  for  by  the  use  of  steam  the 
produce  and  products  of  distant  markets  are 
moved  freely.  In  a  sense,  perhaps  not  intended 
by  the  prophets,  "the  wilderness  begins  to  blos 
som  as  a  rose, "  under  its  magic  touch.  The  pro 
vincialism  which  threatens  the  people  in  different 
portions  of  the  land,  is  modified  by  the  easier 
interchange  of  the  products  of  the  farm,  the  com 
modities  of  the  city,  and  the  encouragement 
offered  to  travel.  The  Constitution  is  made  to  take 
on  a  larger  meaning,  as  the  possibilities  of  the 
"commerce  clause"  are  discovered  by  a  Court, 
which  in  these  years  makes  as  well  as  interprets 
law. x  The  famous  example  of  this  is  the  decision 
in  Ogden  vs.  Gibbon,  called  forth  by  the  steam 
navigation  of  the  Hudson  River. 

But  more  important  than  all  these  results,  or 
rather  working  through  these  results,  a  national 
unity  is  made  real  and  effective.  For  the  path 
ways  ploughed  in  the  waters  by  steam-boats,  and 
the  trackways  made  of  rails  along  which  steam- 
trains  moved  on  land,  are  to  the  nation  in  its  parts, 
as  the  nervous  system  is  to  the  parts  of  the  human 
body.  It  is  no  idle  phrase  that  is  used  when,  it  is 

1  There  is  an  interesting  discussion  of  this  question  of  power  in 
government  as  drawn  forth  by  the  fact  of  steam  as  a  motive 
power,  in  Goodnow's,  Social  Reform  and  the  Constitution,  chap.  ii. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      139 

said,  that  freedom  through  a  national  government 
was  conditioned  upon  the  advent  of  steam,  har 
nessed  to  move  passengers  and  freight.  And 
there  is  a  glorious  symbolism  in  the  fact,  that  the 
corner-stone  of  the  first  railway  uniting  the  East 
with  the  West  was  laid  by  Charles  Carroll,  the 
venerable  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence.  J 

Splendid  as  is  the  reasoning  of  Hamilton,  in  The 
Federalist,  in  favour  of  a  republican  form  of  govern 
ment  as  best  adapted  to  vast  areas  and  large 
populations,  it  is  not  strong  enough  to  convince  the 
modern  mind  that  this  nation  could  have  held 
together  and  grown  in  national  consciousness, 
apart  from  the  introduction  of  a  mechanical  force 
which  he  did  not  and  could  not  appreciate.  Inter 
state  citizenship  now  found  expression  in  inter 
state  commerce,  as  made  possible  by  steam  as 
a  motive  power. 

Another  change  to  be  noted  in  the  period  under 
review  was  primarily  sectional.  At  this  time, 
King  Cotton  was  waving  his  golden  sceptre,  and 
States  in  a  section  of  the  Union  were  yielding  to 
his  sway.  Washington,  as  he  presided  over  the 
debates  of  the  Constitutional  convention,  and 
announced  the  votes  on  slave  importation  and 

'Turner,  Rise  of  the  New  West,  p.  292. 


140         Washington  and  Lincoln 

representation,  quieted  his  conscience  with  the 
thought  that  time,  regardless  of  man's  legislation, 
was  on  the  side  of  the  slave.  But  in  this  he  was 
mistaken.  For  now  after  the  lapse  of  a  generation, 
slavery  seems  forever  established  in  the  Union. 
There  are  few  years  more  tragic  and  confusing 
than  those  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  i8th  century. 
A  poet  somewhere  has  a  line  to  the  effect,  "That 
truth  if  loosed  will  hurl  the  world's  course 
right. "  Against  this  splendid  line  another  might 
be  placed  which  would  read,  "The  forces  of  man 
if  loosed  will  hurl  the  world's  course  wrong. " 

If  the  ear  of  man  could  have  caught  all  the 
sounds  on  the  iyth  of  September,  1787,  it  would 
have  heard  the  scratching  of  quills  on  paper  in  the 
convention  hall  at  Philadelphia  for  the  making  of 
a  "more  perfect  Union"  and  the  sound  of  ham 
mers  in  machine  shops  in  England  for  the  making 
of  a  less  perfect  Union.  For  Arkwright,  Har- 
greaves,  and  Cartwright,  in  perfecting  the  loom, 
spinning- jenny,  and  factory  system,  unconsciously 
hit  the  Union  a  staggering  blow. 

By  these  inventions,  the  capacity  of  the  mills 
for  cotton  enormously  increased.  Suddenly,  these 
mills  loomed  big  on  the  shore  of  the  Old  World 
and,  as  a  hungry  giant,  called  for  more  food.  And 
the  growers  of  long  staple  cotton  on  the  tide  water 


The  National  Group  of  1830      141 

plantations  of  the  New  World,  could  give  this 
industrial  giant  but  a  few  crumbs. 

But,  as  if  there  was  a  mysterious  conspiracy  on 
the  part  of  the  forces  of  man,  the  Yankee  school 
teacher,  Eli  Whitney,  in  1793,  by  his  invention  of 
the  cotton-gin,  made  it  possible  to  feed  the  giant 
loaves  instead  of  crumbs.  For  by  this  device  it 
became  profitable  to  raise  the  short  staple  cotton 
on  the  higher  lands  inland. 

The  effect  of  this  in  changing  the  entire  situation 
was  soon  perceptible.  Slavery  assumed  propor 
tions  hitherto  undreamed  of.  The  annual  yield  of 
cotton  increased  from  two  million  pounds  in  1791, 
to  four  hundred  and  fifty-seven  million  pounds  in 
1834.  *  Aftd  with  this  enormous  increase  there 
went  a  vast  expansion  of  acreage,  and  a  corres 
ponding  increase  in  the  value  of  slaves. 

This  economic  development  vitally  affected  the 
moral  aspect  of  slavery.  The  honest,  but  com 
placent,  theory  of  elimination  by  time  gave  way  to 
the  rather  casuistical  theory  of  mitigation  by 
scattering.  Men  were  not  ready  to  defend  slavery 
on  biblical  grounds;  that  was  to  come  later,  but 
they  were  quite  sure  that  the  evil  could  be  lessened 
by  spreading  it  out  over  the  nation.  As  one  of  the 
leaders  in  the  debate  on  the  Missouri  Compromise 
1  Turner,  Rise  of  the  New  West,  p.  47. 


142         Washington  and  Lincoln 

in  1820  said:  "Will  you  let  the  lightnings  of  its 
wrath  (referring  to  slavery)  break  upon  the  South, 
when  by  the  wise  interposition  of  a  system  of 
legislation  you  may  reduce  it  to  a  summer's 
cloud."1  Here,  through  economic  development, 
was  the  old  question  of  the  parts  in  a  section  of  the 
empire,  gradually  drawing  together  through  a 
common  interest,  to  contend  against  imperial 
control  over  the  whole  empire. 

Still  another  change  was  due  to  the  growth  of 
democracy.  This  change  while  not  appreciated  at 
its  full  significance,  was  really  the  opposite  of  the 
sectional  change,  and  in  the  future  would  prove  to 
be  the  determining  factor  in  asserting  the  powers 
of  the  empire  over  a  section  of  it.  For  the  sec 
tional  change  while  due  to  economic  causes,  was  in 
spirit  an  aristocratic  movement.  Curiously,  at 
the  very  time  this  sectional  change  was  taking 
place,  the  influence  of  the  " well-born"  in  govern 
ment  was  diminishing,  and  the  influence  of  the 
"filthy  democrat "  was  increasing.  To  paraphrase 
a  witticism  of  the  day,  a  self-conscious  democracy 
was  abroad  in  the  land,  that  refused  to  wear  a  high 
hat,  lest  by  so  doing,  it  would  wear  a  crown  on  its 
head  and  thus  seem  to  squint  at  monarchy. 

It  is  not  much,  if  any,  exaggeration  to  say,  that 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  16  Cong.,  I  session,  p.  1025. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      143 

Washington  believed  in  a  republican  form  of  gov 
ernment  based  on  the  aristocracy  of  land.  To  be 
sure,  the  aristocracy  of  land  prevailed  in  the  Revo 
lutionary  period,  but  to  make  this  more  stable,  the 
republican  form  was  established  in  the  Constitu 
tional  period.  The  clause  in  the  Constitution, 
"We  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  as  sug 
gested  in  a  previous  chapter,  meant  that  only 
those  owning  land  had  a  voice  in  the  government. 
The  result  was  that  in  1787,  about  one  half  of  the 
adult  male  population  of  proper  colour  could  vote. 
And  to  secure  the  stability  of  a  national  govern 
ment  based  upon  even  this  restricted  democracy, 
it  was  planned  as  Madison  said,  that  all  popular 
appointments  should  be  "refined  by  successive 
filtrations. " x  Among  the  appointments  which 
were  to  pass  through  such  filtration  was  that  of 
the  President.  He  was  to  be  chosen  by  electors, 
selected  by  the  Legislatures  of  the  States.  But 
the  conditions  under  which  this  election  should 
take  place  were  such,  that  probably  the  final 
choice  would  be  made  by  the  lower  branch  of 
Congress,  where  the  members  were  to  vote  by 
delegations,  each  State  having  one  vote.  Surely 
this  was  filtration! 

However,  two  things  happened  which  thaCon- 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.  vol.  i.,  p.  42. 


144         Washington  and  Lincoln 

stitutional  leaders  did  not  anticipate.  One  was 
the  rise  of  political  parties,  and  the  other  was  the 
extension  of  the  franchise.  The  rise  of  political 
parties  necessitated  the  Xllth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution.  And  by  successive  stages,  the  selec 
tion  and  election  of  the  President  passed  into  the 
direct  control  of  the  people.  And  to  further 
emphasise  this  democratic  tendency,  the  States 
during  this  period  removed  many  of  the  limitations 
on  the  franchise,  and  about  the  time  the  national 
political  conventions  came  into  existence,  that  is, 
in  1830,  manhood  suffrage  was  general.  James 
Wilson  in  one  of  the  debates  on  the  Constitution 
said :  "  He  was  for  raising  the  Federal  pyramid  to  a 
considerable  altitude,  and  therefore  wanted  the 
base  as  broad  as  possible.**1  Profoundly  demo 
cratic  as  the  great  Scotsman  was,  he  probably 
would  have  rubbed  his  eyes  with  wonder,  had  he 
seen  within  almost  a  generation,  the  base  of  the 
pyramid  thus  enlarged.  Here  was  an  advanced 
conception  of  political  freedom,  gaming  the  ascend 
ency  in  the  nation  as  a  whole ;  which  was  destined 
to  work  for  the  unification  of  the  empire,  even  as 
in  earlier  days  it  had  worked  for  the  dismember 
ment  of  the  old  empire. 
These  are  the  four  changes  which  give  to  the 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  41. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      145 

year  1830  its  profound  significance;  changes  which 
Washington  and  others  of  his  day  did  not  and  could 
not  foresee.  But  along  with  these  changes,  and 
working  through  them,  were  two  tendencies  which 
came  down  as  a  legacy  from  the  past.  The  one 
was  the  centrifugal  tendency,  that  is,  the  throwing 
out  of  power  from  the  whole  at  the  centre  to  the 
parts  on  the  circumference.  The  other  was  the 
centripetal  tendency,  that  is,  the  drawing  in  of 
power  from  the  parts  on  the  circumference  to  the 
whole  at  the  centre. 

During  the  Revolutionary  period,  the  centri 
fugal  tendency  was  the  stronger.  In  the  Constitu 
tional  era,  the  centripetal  tendency  gained  enough 
of  an  ascendency,  to  insure  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  although  the  ascendency  was  slight, 
as  seen  in  the  struggle  of  the  State  conventions. 
A  typical  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  expe 
rience  of  Alexander  Hamilton  in  the  New  York 
convention  which  met  at  Poughkeepsie.  A  friend 
inquired  of  him  one  day  what  the  chances  of 
adoption  were.  He  answered,  "God  only  knows. 
Several  votes  have  been  taken,  by  which  it  appears 
that  there  are  two  to  one  against  us. "  And  then 
he  added,  "The  convention  shall  never  rise  until 
the  Constitution  is  adopted."1  And  what  Hamil- 

1  Works  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  J.  C.  Hamilton,  vol.  iii.,  p.  522. 


146         Washington  and  Lincoln 

ton  met  with  in  New  York,  and  Rufus  King  in 
Massachusetts,  James  Madison  also  found  in 
Virginia. 

It  was,  however,  apparently  the  belief  of  Wash 
ington,  that  as  soon  as  the  Constitution  with  its 
ten  Amendments  should  be  adopted,  this  contro 
versy  would  cease,  but  in  this  he  was  mistaken. 
The  new  government  had  scarcely  been  formed, 
when  the  controversy  broke  out  afresh,  and  con 
tinued  with  unabated  force  through  the  years,  to 
reach  an  acute  stage  in  the  National  era. 

As  this  struggle  between  the  two  opposing 
tendencies  is  traced,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the 
line  of  demarcation.  The  dominant  word  in  the 
centrifugal  tendency  is  "compact."  The  domi 
nant  word  in  the  centripetal  tendency  is  "Union. " 
The  emphasis  in  one  is  upon  the  States  forming 
the  Union.  The  emphasis  in  the  other  is  upon  the 
Union  as  formed  by  the  States.  Each  tendency 
insists  upon  its  loyalty  to  the  Constitution.  But 
in  proving  this  loyalty,  those  who  see  the  States, 
quote  more  often  the  Xth  Amendment  which 
says:  "The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it 
to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respec 
tively  or  to  the  people."  Those  who  see  the 
Union  of  the  States  quote  more  often  the  last 


The  National  Group  of  1830      147 

clause  of  Section  8,  Article  I,  which  reads:  "To 
make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper 
for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers, 
and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution 
in  the  government  of  the  United  States  or  any 
department  or  officer  thereof. " 

In  using  thus  the  words  of  the  Constitution, 
those  favouring  the  centrifugal  tendency,  insist 
that  in  the  grant  of  power,  all  power  not  granted 
was  withheld.  Those  favouring  the  centripetal 
tendency,  insist  that  all  power  not  withheld, 
(although  they  might  hesitate  to  state  it,)  was 
granted.  But  behind  these  theories  of  govern 
ment  was  the  question,  as  to  where  the  final 
interpretation  of  the  instrument  of  government 
rested.  The  men  who  emphasised  the  compact 
theory,  declared  that  it  rested  with  the  States. 
The  men  who  emphasised  the  Union,  declared  that 
it  rested  with  the  Supreme  Court. 

If  the  two  tendencies  were  old,  reaching  back 
into  the  Revolutionary  era,  this  question  of  final 
authority  was  of  necessity  new.  For  some  reason 
not  made  clear  in  the  debates  of  the  convention 
the  Constitution  as  adopted  did  not  raise  this 
question,  although  Hamilton,  in  The  Federalist 
insisted  that  it  belonged  to  the  Supreme  Court.1 

1  Federalist,  No.  78. 


148         Washington  and  Lincoln 

However,  Hamilton's  contention  was  not  accepted 
by  all.  And  so,  as  the  history  of  the  years  between 
1787  and  1830  is  read,  it  is  noted  that  many  States 
asserted  the  right  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the 
Constitution. 

The  form  which  this  assertion  took  varied. 
Sometimes  it  was  a  conflict  between  the  sovereign 
State  and  the  Federal  Judiciary,  as  seen  in  the 
attitude  of  Georgia  in  the  Chisholm  case  in  1792, 
Pennsylvania  in  the  Olmstead  case  in  1809,  and 
Ohio  in  the  Bank  case  in  1820.  Again  it  was  a 
conflict  between  the  State  and  Congress,  as  seen 
in  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798 
regarding  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws,  and  the 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  resolutions  of  1809 
against  the  Enforcement  Act  of  the  Embargo. 
Still  again  it  was  a  conflict  between  the  State  and 
the  National  Executive  as  revealed  in  the  Hartford 
Convention  of  1814,  on  the  question  of  calling  out 
the  militia.1  But  whatever  form  the  tendency 
took,  it  was  always  the  parts  forming  the 
whole,  as  over  against  the  whole  as  formed  by 
the  parts.  And  the  parts  acting  severally,  and 
therein  was  the  weakness  of  the  tendency,  as 
serted  the  right  to  pass  upon  the  constitution- 

1  For  the  documentary  statement  of  this  contest,  the  reader  is 
referred  to,  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      149 

ality  of  the  acts  of  the  whole.  This  was  the 
centrifugal  tendency. 

But  over  and  against  this  tendency  must  be 
placed  the  working  out  of  the  centripetal  ten 
dency,  as  seen  pre-eminently  in  the  career  of  one 
man.1 

About  the  time  Washington  started  from  Mt. 
Vernon  to  become  President,  he  left  behind  in  his 
native  State,  a  young  man  named  John  Marshall. 
After  serving  his  country  in  the  army,  in  the  State 
Legislature,  in  Congress,  and  as  Secretary  of  State, 
Marshall  was  elected  by  John  Adams  to  be  Chief 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court.  During  the  thirty- 
four  years  thereafter  came  a  series  of  masterly 
decisions  based  upon  a  construction  of  the  Consti 
tution  the  purpose  and  effect  of  which  was  to 
accelerate  the  centripetal  tendency  in  government. 

In  1803,  in  Marburg  vs.  Madison,  Marshall 
declared  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  authority 
to  declare  null  and  void  the  Acts  of  Congress. 
Law-making  was  limited  by  the  Constitution,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  was  to  interpret  the  Constitu 
tion.  In  Martin  vs.  Hunters  Lessee,  in  1813,  he 
declared  the  right  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  enforce 

*  It  is  interesting  to  notice,  that  Marshall  became  Chief  Justice 
at  about  the  time  Jefferson  became  President.  Almost  the  last 
official  act  of  John  Adams  was  the  appointment  of  Marshall.  It 
is  ft  fine  illustration  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy  of  history. 


150         Washington  and  Lincoln 

its  decisions  in  the  States,  even  though  the  State 
courts  had  rendered  opposite  decisions.  The  Su 
preme  Court  in  cases  arising  under  the  Constitu 
tion  was  final  in  all  States.  In  the  Dartmouth 
Case  in  1818,  he  asserted  the  right  of  the  Supreme 
Court  to  set  aside  State  legislation  that  was  con 
trary  to  the  Constitution.  In  1819,  in  McCulloch 
vs.  Maryland,  he  declared  the  doctrine  of  implied 
powers  as  distinct  from  literal  or  strict  construc 
tion.  In  American  Insurance  Co.  vs.  Canter,  in 
1828,  he  argued  that  the  Federal  government  had 
the  right  to  acquire  territory  either  by  treaty  or 
conquest. 

As  these  decisions  are  studied,  and  the  layman 
may  study  them,  for  they  are  addressed  to  the 
mind  of  man,  not  to  the  legal  training  of  lawyers, 
the  outstanding  fact  is  that  they  enunciate  a 
doctrine  of  government  the  opposite  of  that  enun 
ciated  by  such  a  man  as  Jefferson.  Here  is  a 
pronounced  consolidating  tendency.  Jefferson 
perceived  this  and  feared  it.  In  1820,  he  wrote: 
"They  are  construing  our  Constitution  from  a 
co-ordination  of  a  general  and  special  government 
to  a  general  and  supreme  one  alone."1  Again  in 
1821,  he  wrote:  "The  great  object  of  my  fear  is  the 
Federal  Judiciary.  That  body,  like  gravity  ever 

1  Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  x.,  p.  170. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      151 

acting  with  noiseless  foot,  and  unalarming  ad 
vances,  gaining  ground  step  by  step,  and  hold 
ing  what  it  gains,  is  ingulphing  insidiously  the 
special  governments  into  the  jaws  of  that  which 
feeds  them.'*1 

The  decisions  of  Marshall  have  stood  the  test  of 
time,  and  are  in  a  sense  a  part  of  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  land.  But  this  was  not  so  in  1830. 
Men  not  only  questioned  the  correctness  of  these 
interpretations  of  the  Constitution,  but  questioned 
also  the  right  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  make  them. 
And  it  is  this  fact,  that  gives  to  the  era  of  1830  its 
profound  significance.2  The  time  had  come  to 
pause  and  define  the  government.  It  is  said 
that  as  Gouverneur  Morris  was  leaving  the  con 
vention  hall  in  1787,  a  friend  remarked,  "that 
a  good  Constitution  had  been  made."  His 
reply  was,  "that  depends  upon  how  it  is  con 
strued."3  And  this  is  precisely  the  situation  in 
1830.  Amid  the  vast  changes  in  the  nation,  as 
seen  in  territorial  expansion,  sectional  growth, 


1  Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  x.,  p.  189. 

2  Webster  writing  to  Clay,  October  5,  1832,  says:  "Not  only 
the  tariff,  but  the  Constitution  itself,  in  its  elemental  and  funda 
mental  provisions,  will  be  assailed  with  talent,  vigour,  and  union. 
Everything  is  debated  as  if  nothing   had  ever  been  settled." 
Schurz,  Henry  Clay,  vol.  i.,  p.  348. 

3  Gordy,  Political  Parties  in  the  United  States,  vol.  i.,  p.  114. 


152         Washington  and  Lincoln 

and  democratic  consciousness,  the  question  was 
how  should  the  Constitution  be  construed.  And 
in  construing  it,  the  question  would  be  answered, 
whether  it  was  a  good  Constitution. 

Having  noted  the  changed  conditions  in  the 
nation,  and  examined  the  two  opposing  tendencies 
struggling  for  mastery  in  government,  the  question 
now  arises,  what  was  the  real  problem  that  con 
fronted  the  National  group  in  1830?  There  can 
be  but  one  answer  to  this  question,  namely,  the 
old  problem  of  power  in  government.  The  same 
problem  that  confronted  the  Parliamentary  group 
in  1763,  the  Revolutionary  group  in  1776,  and  the 
Constitutional  group  in  1787.  And  as  the  problem 
came  to  the  front  in  the  preceding  eras,  because 
of  vast  change,  so  it  reappeared  in  1830. 

There  is  an  interesting  experience  related  in 
connection  with  the  famous  Lewis  and  Clark 
expedition,  which  began  in  the  spring  of  1804,  and 
ended  in  the  autumn  of  1806.  After  journeying 
for  months  up-stream  in  a  batteau  and  two 
pirogues,  the  men,  forty-five  in  number,  came  to 
the  falls  of  the  Missouri  in  Montana.  Here  it  was 
planned  to  use  a  smaller  and  lighter  boat,  the  iron 
framework  of  which  had  been  made  in  the  East 
before  starting.  So  covering  the  framework  with 
skins,  the  boat  was  placed  in  the  water,  but  alas, 


The  National  Group  of  1830      153 

it  would  not  float.  After  experimenting  with 
other  coverings  the  boat  was  abandoned,  and  sail 
ing  in  small  canoes,  the  party  pushed  westward 
and  reached  the  Pacific  Ocean.1  Something  of 
this  sort  was  true  in  1830.  Years  before  the 
Constitution  in  its  framework  had  been  made. 
The  nation  had  pushed  forward  and  found  itself 
in  new  conditions.  Would  the  Constitutional 
framework  float?  Or  would  it  be  necessary  to 
enter  as  many  canoes  as  there  were  States  in  order 
to  continue  the  journey?  Let  us  now  with  1830 
as  a  starting  point,  consider  briefly  some  of  the 
answers  given  to  these  questions. 

First,  what  was  the  attitude  of  Daniel  Webster 
with  respect  to  the  lodgment  of  power?  On  the 
morning  of  January  26,  1830,  Webster,  walking  up 
Pennsylvania  Avenue  to  the  capitol,  met  Senator 
Bell  of  New  Hampshire  who  remarked  to  him  with 
great  feeling:  "Mr.  Webster  it  is  time,  high  time 
that  the  people  of  this  country  knew  the  meaning 
of  the  Constitution. "  "Then, "  replied  Webster, 
"by  the  blessing  of  heaven,  before  this  day  ends 
they  shall  know  what  I  understand  it  to  mean."2 
If  tradition  is  trustworthy,  the  great  statesman 
upon  reaching  the  Senate  chamber  found  it 

1  Journals  of  Lewis  and  Clark  Expedition,  Thwaite  Ed.,  vol.  ii., 
p.  217.  3  H.  C.  Lodge,  Webster,  p.  178. 


154         Washington  and  Lincoln 

crowded,  and  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  door  he  saw 
Senator  Dixon  of  Alabama,  who  weighing  about 
four  hundred  pounds,  had  found  it  impossible  to 
reach  his  seat,  and  so  settling  down  like  a  Dutch 
sloop  stuck  in  the  mud  at  low  tide,  had  cut  a  hole 
in  the  door,  that  through  it  he  might  look  and 
listen,  as  the  debate  continued.  But  Webster, 
contrary  to  the  popular  impression,  not  being  a 
large  man,  was  able  to  work  his  way  through  the 
crowd  and  reach  his  seat. 

He  was  here  prepared  to  continue  the  debate 
which  began  on  December  2Qth  with  the  introduc 
tion  of  a  resolution  regarding  the  sale  of  public 
lands.1  On  January  iQth,  Senator  Hayne  of 
South  Carolina  had  opposed  the  resolution.  This 
called  forth  a  reply  from  Webster  on  the  next  day. 
On  the  2  ist,  Hayne  rising  to  reply  to  Webster 
remarked  that,  "he  would  not  deny  that  some 
things  had  fallen  from  that  gentleman  which 
rankled  here  (touching  his  breast)  from  which  he 
would  desire  at  once  to  relieve  himself.  The 
gentleman  had  discharged  his  fire  in  the  face  of  the 

'  This  famous  controversy  is  given  in  full  in  the  Congressional 
Debates,  vol.  vi.,  part  i.  The  resolution  of  Foote,  which  intro 
duced  the  controversy  is  on  p.  3;  the  formal  speech  of  Hayne  on 
January  igth  and  25th  is  given,  pp.  43-58;  the  reply  of  Webster 
on  January  26th  is  found  on  pp.  58-80;  and  the  answer  of  Hayne 
on  January  27th  is  on  pp.  82-93. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      155 

Senate.  He  hoped  he  would  now  afford  him  an 
opportunity  of  returning  the  shot. "  Webster 
replied,  "I  am  ready  to  receive  it.  Let  the  dis 
cussion  proceed. "  Hayne  spoke  on  this  day,  and 
again  on  the  25th,  when  he  finished  his  speech. 

His  argument  was  one  in  favour  of  the  centri 
fugal  tendency.  In  substance  he  contended  that 
the  States,  under  the  theory  of  compact,  had  the 
right  to  determine  whether  the  central  govern 
ment,  through  the  laws  of  Congress,  went  beyond 
the  power  delegated  to  it  by  the  Constitution.  As 
he  said:  "The  States  may  lawfully  decide  for 
themselves,  and  each  State  for  itself,  whether  in  a 
given  case,  the  act  of  the  general  government 
transcends  its  power."  This  was  but  a  brilliant 
exposition  in  oratorical  form  of  Jefferson's  conten 
tion  in  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1 799  when  he 
said:  "The  several  States  which  formed  that 
instrument,  being  sovereign  and  independent,  have 
the  unquestionable  right  to  judge  of  its  infraction; 
that  a  nullification,  by  those  sovereignties,  of  all 
unauthorised  acts  done  under  colour  of  that 
instrument  is  the  rightful  remedy.  "x 

And  now  Webster  arose  to  reply.  It  is  useless 
to  attempt  a  description  of  the  scene.  The  exult 
ant  Southern  leaders  proud  of  their  champion's 

1  McDonald,  Select  Documents,  p.  152. 


156         Washington  and  Lincoln 

effort ;  the  keen  and  penetrating  expression  on  the 
face  of  the  presiding  officer;  the  anxious  attitude 
of  Northern  men,  who  wondered  whether  such  an 
argument  could  be  answered ;  and  finally  the  black- 
visaged  statesman,  whose  head  seemed  as  massive 
as  the  granite  rocks  amid  which  he  was  born, and 
whose  eyes  were  as  "anthracite  furnaces  needing 
only  to  be  blown. " z 

And  the  speech  itself  with  its  superb  exordium, 
which  was  like  the  loosening  of  the  strings  of  the 
bow  of  a  violin,  that  later  they  might  be  tightened 
and  produce  exquisite  music;  the  magnificent 
eulogy  of  his  adopted  State,  which  brought  tears 
from  the  sons  of  Massachusetts;  the  mingling  of 
sarcasm  and  denunciation,  which  as  one  said  who 


1  "  Not  many  days  ago,  I  saw  at  breakfast  the  notablest  of 
your  notabilities,  Daniel  Webster.  He  is  a  magnificent  specimen. 
You  might  say  to  all  the  world,  'This  is  our  Yankee  Englishman; 
such  limbs  we  make  in  Yankee  Land ! '  As  a  logic  fencer,  advocate, 
or  parliamentary  Hercules,  one  would  incline  to  back  him  at  first 
sight  against  all  the  extant  world.  The  tanned  complexion; 
that  amorphous  crag-like  face;  the  dull  black  eyes  under  the 
precipice  of  brows,  like  dull  anthracite  furnaces  needing  only  to  be 
blown;  the  mastiff  mouth  accurately  closed;  I  have  not  traced  so 
much  of  silent  Bersiker  rage  that  I  remember  in  any  man.  4I 
guess  I  should  not  like  to  be  your  nigger! '  Webster  is  not  loqua 
cious,  but  he  is  pertinent,  conclusive;  a  dignified,  perfectly  bred 
man,  though  not  English  in  breeding;  a  man  worthy  of  the  best 
reception  among  us,  and  meeting  such  I  understand. " — Carlyleto 
Emerson,  June  24,  1829.  Correspondence,  Norton  Ed.,  vol.  i., 
p.  260. 


The  -National  Group  of  1830      15? 

listened,  made  "thunder  and  lightning  seem  as 
peaches  and  cream  in  comparison  " ;  and  the  match 
less  peroration  which  closed  with  the  words, 
"Liberty  and  Union  now  and  forever,  one  and 
inseparable." 

But  what  of  the  argument?  How  does  he  meet 
Hayne's  contention  of  power  lodged  in  the  States? 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  both  Hayne  and 
Webster  differ  from  Madison  as  to  the  lodgment  of 
power.  Madison  claimed  that  the  power  in  gov 
ernment  was  divisible — some  in  the  States,  and 
some  in  the  Union  of  the  States.  But  Webster 
and  Hayne  insist  that  the  power  is  indivisible. 
Hayne  contending  that  the  Union  was  but  an 
agent  of  the  States,  the  indivisible  power,  derived 
from  the  people,  being  lodged  in  the  States. 
Webster  contending  that  the  indivisible  power, 
derived  from  the  people,  was  lodged  in  the  Union, 
and  therefore  the  Union  possessed  a  power  inde 
pendent  of  the  States.  And  even  as  Hayne  gave 
a  brilliant  exposition  of  Jefferson's  position  in  the 
Kentucky  Resolutions,  so  Webster  in  this  conten 
tion  was  giving  popular  and  classic  expression  to 
Marshall's  reasoning  as  embodied  in  his  decisions 
from  the  bench. 

The  great  jurist,  in  Cohens  vs.  Virginia,  in  1821, 
had  said:  "The  people  make  the  Constitution, 


158         Washington  and  Lincoln 

and  the  people  can  unmake  it.  It  is  the  creature 
of  their  will  and  lives  only  by  their  will.  But  this 
supreme  and  irresistible  power  to  make  or  unmake 
resides  only  in  the  whole  body  of  the  people;  not 
in  any  subdivision  of  them.  The  attempt  of  any 
of  the  parts  to  exercise  it  is  usurpation,  and  ought 
to  be  repelled  by  those  to  whom  the  people  have 
delegated  their  power  of  repelling  it."1  Webster 
takes  this  thought  of  power  as  lodged,  and  so  uses 
it  as  to  furnish  the  nation  a  text  book  which  in 
after  years  it  will  read.  He  responds  to  the  old 
toast,  "Another  hoop  for  the  barrel  or  more 
cement  for  the  Union,"  and  answers  as  Washing 
ton  had  answered,  only  with  more  assurance, 
"More  cement  for  the  Union. " 

Second,  "Andrew  Jackson,  John  C.  Calhoun,  and 
Henry  Clay,  and  the  expression  of  power.  All 
three  were  from  the  South,  counting  Kentucky  as 
southern,  although  at  this  time  it  was  more 
western  than  southern  and  two  of  them  had  been 
born  in  South  Carolina.  At  this  time  Jackson  is 
in  the  White  House.  Calhoun  is  presiding  officer 
of  the  Senate,  and  Clay  is  the  leader  in  Congress. 
The  man  in  the  White  House  is  the  great  contra 
diction  of  American  history;  the  officer  of  the 
Senate  its  great  misapplication;  the  leader  of 

1  6  Wheaton,  p.  265. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      159 

Congress  its  great  disappointment.  They  con 
stitute  the  Southern  triangle  of  the  era.  And 
as  the  points  of  a  triangle  are  equally  distant,  so 
these  men  in  temperament  and  training  are 
apart.  Jackson  is  honest  but  brutal;  Clay, 
suave  but  magnetic;  Calhoun,  logical  but  quietly 
passionate. 

These  men  come  together  to  answer  the  ques 
tion  as  to  the  expression  of  power  in  govern 
ment.  Congress  on  May  13,  1828,  passed  a  Tariff 
Act  known  as  the  "bill  of  abominations."  John 
Randolph  caricatured  this  by  saying  that,  "the 
bill  referred  to  manufactures  of  no  sort  or  kind, 
but  the  manufacture  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States. " *  Following  this,  and  in  the  same 
year,  Calhoun  wrote  his  Exposition,  which  was 
the  arsenal  from  which  Hayne  drew  his  forensic 
ammunition  on  lodgment  of  power  as  mentioned. 
On  July  14,  1832,  Congress  passed  a  new  Tariff  Bill 
which  reduced  somewhat  the  duties  but  retained 
the  protective  feature.  On  November  24,  1832, 
a  convention  authorised  by  the  Legislature  met  in 
South  Carolina  and  passed  the  "Ordinance,"  to 
nullify  "certain  acts  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  purporting  to  be  laws,  laying  duties 
and  imposts  on  the  importation  of  foreign  com- 

'Taussig,  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  101,  note. 


i6o         Washington  and  Lincoln 

modities. "  And  further  to  "declare  null  and 
void,  and  no  law,  nor  binding  upon  their  State, 
its  officers  or  citizens, " x  the  Tariff  Acts  of  1828  and 
1832.  It  also  set  February  i,  1833,  as  the  time 
for  this  to  go  into  effect.  So  much  for  the  bare 
statement  of  facts. 

Here  was  a  new  an^  startling  situation.  A  single 
State  in  the  Union  raising  its  arm  in  defiance  of 
the  whole  Union  as  represented  in  its  legislative 
body.  The  fact  that  a  State  presumed  to  pass 
upon  the  constitutionality  of  a  law  was  not  new. 
The  further  fact  that  a  State  threatened  to  nullify 
a  national  law  within  the  State  was  not  new.  But 
never  before  had  a  State  proceeded  in  the  orderly 
way  of  calling  a  convention,  and  in  the  definite 
manner  of  naming  a  date.  There  might  as  Cal- 
houn  insisted,  be  nothing  in  this  position  that  was 
not  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions, 
although  Madison  in  old  age  came  forth  from  his 
retirement  to  deny  Calhoun's  claim.2  But  the 
two  States  in  1798  did  not  go  beyond  a  statement 
of  opinion.  South  Carolina  asserts  its  determina 
tion  to  act.  Surely  something  must  be  done. 

The  eye  of  the  nation  turns  from  the  "thinking 
machine"  of  Fort  Hill  to  the  grim  old  soldier  who 

x  MacDonald,  Select  Documents,  p.  268. 

1  Writings  of  James  Madison,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  ix.,  p.  341,  ff. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      161 

is  now  President.  What  will  he  do?  At  the 
celebration  of  Jefferson's  birthday  on  April  13, 
1830  in  Washington,  he  had  startled  and  thrilled 
the  company  by  proposing  the  toast,  "  Our  Federal 
Union;  it  must  be  preserved!'*1  Away  at  the 
"Hermitage"  in  1832,  he  had  watched  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  South  Carolina  convention,  and 
intimated  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  that  it 
would  be  well  to  keep  in  touch  with  Charleston. 
And  finally  on  December  10,  1832,  he  issued  his 
"Proclamation, "  the  longest  state  paper  in  Ameri 
can  history.  But  if  the  words  are  many,  and 
some  of  the  sentences  soft,  beneath  the  language 
is  the  hard  fist  of  "Old  Hickory,"  asserting  his 
determination  to  uphold  the  law  of  Congress  in 
every  State  of  the  Union.  And  if  necessary,  he 
adds  privately,  but  officially,  he  will  march  two 
hundred  thousand  soldiers  into  the  State  of  Cal- 
houn  and  Hayne. 2  "The  country,"  to  use  his  apt 
simile,  "was  like  a  bag  of  meal  with  both  ends 
open.  Pick  it  up  in  the  middle  or  endwise,  it  will 
run  out.  He  was  prepared  to  tie  the  bag  and  save 


1  At  this  banquet  Calhoun  followed  Jackson  with  the  toast; 
"  The  Union :  Next  to  our  liberty  most  dear :  may  we  all  remember 
that  it  can  only  be  preserved  by  respecting  the  rights  of  the  States, 
and  distributing  equally  the  benefit  and  burden  of  the  Union." 
Parton's,  Life  of  Jackson,  vol.  iii.,  p.  283. 

'  Gaillard  Hunt's,  John  C.  Calhoun,  p.  178. 


1 62         Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  country."1  The  strong  arm  of  the  Union  is 
raised  to  meet  the  arm  of  a  State. 

What  will  happen?  was  the  question  being  asked 
on  every  hand.  South  Carolina  in  apparent  hesi 
tation  extends  the  day  for  action  to  March  1st. 
In  this  crisis  Henry  Clay  comes  to  the  front  and 
takes  command  of  the  situation  in  Congress. 
After  conference  with  Calhoun,  he  arises  in  the 
Senate  on  February  12,  1833,  and  asks  permission 
to  introduce  a  bill  to  modify  the  tariff.  By  this 
procedure  he  balances  with  compromise,  the  force 
threatened  by  Jackson,  although  the  day  before  the 
bill  passed,  the  Force  Bill  based  upon  Jackson's 
Proclamation  became  law. 2 

Much  speculation  has  been  indulged  in  as  to 
whether  South  Carolina  or  the  Federal  govern 
ment  won  in  this  controversy.  The  answer  is, 
neither.  The  State  threatened  to  secede  and  did 
not ;  Jackson  threatened  to  use  force  and  did  not. 
A  compromise  was  effected.  The  speculation  re 
calls  the  words  of  the  philosopher  who  said  "he 
would  as  soon  be  dead  as  alive. "  And  when  some 
one  asked  him  why  he  did  not  die,  he  replied,  that 
he  "would  as  soon  be  alive  as  dead. "  So  with  the 
Union  and  the  State.  The  question  as  to  the 

1  Parton's,  Life  of  Jackson,  vol.  iii.,  p.  462. 

a  Congressional  Debates,  vol.  ix.,  part  2,  p.  1903. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      163 

expression  of  power  in  government  had  arisen,  and 
the  old  answer  had  been  given,  "through  law,  in 
the  spirit  of  compromise,  if  possible,  by  force  when 
necessary. " 

Third,  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  and  the  abuse 
of  power.  Government  is  something  more  than  a 
state  paper,  with  officials  elected  to  enact  laws  or 
appointed  to  interpret  them.  The  movements 
that  are  beyond  formal  legislative  or  judicial  action 
are  sometimes  the  most  potent.  Daniel  Dulany 
was  only  a  private  citizen  in  1765,  when  he  wrote 
his  great  argument  on  taxation  and  representa 
tion,  yet  William  Pitt,  in  1766,  held  a  copy  in  his 
hand,  from  which  he  quoted  in  making  his  famous 
speech  in  Parliament  in  opposition  to  the  ministry. 
Tom  Paine  was  never  a  member  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  yet,  in  1776,  he  wrote  the  pamphlet 
which  made  imperative  the  act  of  the  Congress  in 
issuing  the  Declaration.  The  Federalist  was  but 
one  of  many  collections  of  papers  published  in 
America  at  the  time,  and  its  contributors  signed 
other  than  their  true  names,  yet  this  collection  of 
papers  turned  the  tide  in  favour  of  the  Constitu 
tion  in  1787. 

So,  in  1830,  the  strongest  answer  to  the  question 
as  to  the  abuse  of  power  was  given  by  one  beyond 
the  official  circle.  As  if  feeling  the  sense  of  fitness, 


1 64         Washington  and  Lincoln 

this  answer,  which  was  in  spirit  a  protest,  was 
given  in  the  old  storm-centre  of  the  Revolutionary 
period,  the  city  of  Boston.  And  further  to 
emphasise  the  sense  of  fitness,  this  answer  was 
given  by  a  man  who  did  his  work  within  a  stone's 
throw  of  the  famous  State  House  in  which  Sam 
Adams  had  spent  so  many  thrilling  and  protesting 
hours,  on  the  corner  of  Water  and  Congress 
streets  in  Boston. 

On  January  i,  1831,  Garrison  began  giving  his 
answer  through  a  publication  called  The  Libera 
tor.1  The  conditions  under  which  it  was  pub 
lished  were  not  promising.  Type  was  borrowed 
from  one  shop,  and  a  press  was  used  in  another 
shop.  And  the  paper  was  mailed  out  from  a  low, 
dingy  room  under  the  eaves  of  a  structure  called 
the  Merchants  Building.  In  its  mechanical  make 
up  the  paper  was  not  very  imposing.  It  measured 
nine  and  a  quarter  by  fourteen  inches,  had  four 
columns  to  a  page,  and  four  pages  to  a  number. 
The  editor  and  printer  was  poor,  unknown,  erratic, 
having  no  political  affiliation,  and  without  a  coun 
try,  for  he  had  voluntarily  read  himself  out  of  the 
Union.  But,  as  Lee  said  of  Tom  Paine,  "he  had 

1  See  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  the  Story  of  His  Life  Told  by 
His  Children,  vol.  i.,  chapter  viii.,  for  detailed  account  of  publica 
tion  of  The  Liberator. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      165 

genius  in  his  eyes."  And  at  the  head  of  the  first 
page  of  his  little  sheet  he  said  something  which 
few  noticed  at  the  time,  but  which  makes  pretty 
good  history  to-day.  This  is  what  he  said:  "I 
shall  strenuously  contend  for  the  immediate  en 
franchisement  of  our  slave  population — I  will  be 
as  harsh  as  truth  and  as  uncompromising  as  just 
ice  on  this  subject — I  do  not  wish  to  think,  or 
speak,  or  write  in  moderation — I  am  in  earnest — 
I  will  not  equivocate — I  will  not  retreat  a  single 
inch,  and  I  will  be  heard!"  And  thus  it  was  that 
the  little  sheet  slipped  out  into  the  world  to  a  few 
hundred  subscribers. 

It  may  seem  incongruous  to  pass  from  Webster, 
Jackson,  and  Clay  to  this  unknown  man.  But 
history  as  read  to-day  justifies  the  connection. 
The  National  period  cannot  be  understood  without 
counting  in  the  slavery  agitator  and  his  little 
paper.  His  printing-press  began  to  rumble,  and, 
by  and  by,  the  foundation  of  the  capitol  shook. 
He  placed  his  small  white  sheet  with  its  black  ink 
over  against  the  vast  white  cotton  fields  with  their 
black  slaves.  He  challenged  the  economic  develop 
ment  of  the  South,  and  halting  King  Cotton  as  he 
stalked  down  the  national  highway,  struck  from 
his  hand  the  golden  sceptre  of  power.  He  looked 
at  Frederick  Douglass  for  the  first  time,  and 


1 66         Washington  and  Lincoln 

raising  his  voice  so  that  the  North  and  South 
were  compelled  to  hear,  he  asked,  "Am  I 
looking  at  a  thing,  at  property,  or  at  a  human 
being?"1 

Some  great  movements  in  history,  like  big  rivers 
that  sweep  across  continents,  have  small  begin 
nings.  This  beginning  in  the  print-shop  was  small 
enough,  but  its  ending  was  great  enough.  The 
fact  is,  this  man  and  the  movement  he  represented 
snatched  the  loosened  strands  of  American  tradi 
tion  which  began  at  the  Hall  of  Independence,  and 
saved  the  web  of  its  history.  From  his  dingy 
room  he  put  a  lever  under  slavery,  and  lifted  the 
black  man  from  the  lower  level  of  philosophical 
debate  in  the  Constitutional  convention  to  the 
higher  level  of  moral  imperative  in  the  abolition 
agitation.  And  to  this  abolition  propaganda  be 
longs  the  credit  of  having  seized  upon  the  noble 
impulses  that  at  times  warmed  the  hearts  of 
Patrick  Henry,  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  James 
Madison,  and  of  having  hurled  them  at  the  con 
science  of  a  nation.  This  cause,  which  Garrison  re 
presented,  repeated  the  question  that  Washington 
asked,  namely,  What  is  the  abuse  of  power  in 
government?  But  it  did  what  the  great  leader 

1  See  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  the  Story  of  His  Life  Told  by  His 
Children,  vol.  iii.,  p.  19. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      167 

failed  to  do:  it  made  the  people  answer,  and 
ultimately  answer  in  no  uncertain  tone — "slavery.*' 
Fourth,  what  was  the  source  of  power  in  the 
opinion  of  John  Quincy  Adams  ?  Let  us  now  return 
to  the  capitol  of  the  nation.  Something  strange 
is  happening.  A  great  American  is  about  to  be 
born  again,  politically.  Look  at  him  for  a  moment. 
At  the  age  of  seven,  he  is  on  his  father's  porch  at 
Braintree  listening  to  the  guns  at  Bunker  Hill. 
At  fourteen,  he  is  in  St.  Petersburg  as  secretary  to 
the  American  minister.  At  twenty-seven,  he  is 
himself  the  minister  to  Holland.  At  thirty,  he  is 
minister  to  Prussia.  At  thirty-six,  he  is  a  member 
of  the  United  States  Senate.  At  forty,  he  is  again 
in  Russia  as  minister.  At  forty-five,  he  is  one  of 
the  commissioners  at  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.  At 
forty-eight,  he  is  minister  to  Great  Britain.  At 
fifty,  he  is  Secretary  of  State.  At  fifty-eight,  he  is 
President  of  the  United  States.  At  sixty-two, 
going  into  retirement,  he  writes  in  his  diary  that 
"the  sun  of  his  life  is  setting  in  the  clouds  of 
gloom. "  Two  years  pass.  One  day  the  old  man 
(for  men  were  old  long  before  sixty  in  those  days), 
receives  a  delegation  of  farmers  and  neighbours, 
who  come  to  ask  him  to  run  for  Congress.  They 
hesitate,  not  sure  how  an  ex-President  will  receive 
such  a  suggestion.  He  detects  their  hesitation, 


i68         Washington  and  Lincoln 

and  assures  them  that  such  a  suggestion  will  be 
kindly  received.  And  then  he  adds  words  that 
must  never  be  forgotten  while  the  Republic 
endures.  He  says:  "Nor  in  my  opinion  would  an 
ex-President  of  the  United  States  be  degraded  by 
serving  as  a  Selectman  of  his  town,  if  elected 
thereto  by  the  people."1  And  he  is  elected,  not 
Selectman,  but  member  of  Congress,  taking  his 
seat  in  December,  1831.  Such  in  a  few  words  is 
the  career  of  John  Quincy  Adams. 

As  he  takes  his  seat  in  Congress,  which  gives  him 
his  opportunity,  two  things  happen.  First,  from 
the  South  comes  a  demand  for  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  thus  reopening  the  ugly  question  of  slavery, 
which  had  remained  closed  since  the  Missouri 
Compromise  of  1820.  Second,  in  the  North,  the 
first  pebbles  of  agitation  are  being  dropped  by  the 
abolitionists  in  the  waters  of  the  nation,  and 
the  ripples  of  petition  are  beginning  to  wash 
against  the  walls  of  Congress. 

The  leaders  from  the  South,  supported  largely 
by  the  leaders  from  the  North,  say  that  these 
petitions  shall  not  be  received.  Later,  they  say 
these  petitions  may  be  received,  but  must  be 

1  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  viii.,  p.  239.  It  is  useless 
to  write  of  American  history  for  this  first  half  of  the  iQth  cent 
ury  without  reading  these  remarkable  Memoirs. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      169 

rejected  without  discussion.  But  no,  says  Adams, 
they  shall  be  received  and  discussed.  Then  begins 
a  debate  which  continues  for  a  decade,  and  which 
for  bitterness  has  no  parallel  in  our  history. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this  debate?  The 
mistake  must  not  be  made  of  assuming  that  it  was 
mere  passion  and  selfish  interest  pitted  against 
reason  and  unselfish  devotion.  This  was  the 
splendid  noonday  hour  of  intellectual  leadership 
for  the  South  in  Congress.  One  day  in  1833, 
Calhoun  is  answering  Webster,  and  John  Randolph, 
who  is  listening,  notices  a  hat  on  the  desk  in  front 
which  interferes  with  his  view  of  the  speaker. 
"Remove  it, "  he  exclaims;  "I  want  to  see  Webster 
die  muscle  by  muscle."1  There  were  great  men 
from  the  South,  who,  many  supposed,  could 
mentally  annihilate  such  a  giant  as  Webster.  And 
yet  these  men  deny  the  right  of  petition  regarding 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

How  can  this  be  explained?  The  answer  is, 
that  a  conception  of  government  which  prevailed 
in  the  Constitutional  period  is  given  a  direction 
which  the  leaders  of  that  period  could  not  antici 
pate.  This  theory,  which  has  been  mentioned, 
was  that  the  end  of  society,  in  organised  govern 
ment,  is  the  protection  of  property.  In  1830,  the 

1  Gaillard  Hunt,  Calhoun,  p.  184. 


170         Washington  and  Lincoln 

Southern  leaders  planted  themselves  firmly  on  this 
conception.  They  said,  the  end  of  society  is  the 
protection  of  property ;  slaves  are  property  under 
the  Constitution;  agitation  against  slavery  is  agi 
tation  against  property — therefore  these  petitions 
shall  not  be  received. 

Of  course  they  do  not  deny  all  right  of  petition, 
for  they  know  this  is  guaranteed  by  the  First 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  But  they  know 
that  such  right  is  qualified  to  the  extent  that  no 
petitions  are  allowable  that  are  disrespectful  or 
contrary  to  the  Constitution.  And  they  argue 
that  petitions  against  slavery  are  disrespectful 
because  against  property,  and  slaves  are  property, 
and  the  Constitution  exists  for  the  protection  of 
property. 

Now  glance  for  a  moment  at  Adams.  He  is  not 
an  agitator,  or  reformer,  or  even  an  abolitionist, 
but  a  profound,  fearless,  constitutional  statesman. 
He  stands  by  the  Constitution  as  he  understands 
it.  He  says:  "I  hold  this  resolution  [the  gag-law] 
to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  rules  of  the  House,  and  of  the  rights 
of  my  constituents.  "x  He  knows  that  if  this  is  a 
government  deriving  its  power  from  the  people, 
then  the  people  have  not  only  the  right  to  choose 

1  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  ix.,  p.  287. 


The  National  Group  of  1830      171 

their  servants,  but  the  right  to  influence  them 
after  chosen.  It  is  the  democratic  spirit  pushing 
for  recognition.  He  does  not  deny  that  under  the 
Constitution  property  has  rights.  But  he  says, 
what  James  Wilson  alone  said  in  1787,  "The  rights 
of  property  shall  not  be  superior  to  the  rights  of 
man."1  One  aim  of  government  (not  its  end)  is 
the  protection  of  property,  because  the  end  of 
government  is  the  development  of  man.  He  took 
the  words  in  the  preamble,  "We,  the  people, "  and 
insisted  that  they  ought  to  mean  more  than  the 
founders  intended  they  should  mean.  And  so  in 
1844,  a^  seventy-seven  years  of  age,  as  he  stood 
victorious  in  the  battle  for  the  rights  of  petition, 
he  answered  the  question  as  to  the  source  of  power, 
and  found  it  in  the  people. 

As  the  study  of  this  period  comes  to  a  close,  let 
us  briefly  summarise.  The  National  group  of 
about  1830  was  called  upon  to  shape  the  affairs  of 
government  in  a  nation  that  had  changed  in  the 
years  following  the  Constitutional  convention  in 
four  directions:  First,  in  territorial  expansion, 
carrying  with  it  increase  in  population.  Second, 
in  the  use  of  steam  as  motive  power.  Third,  in  a 
sectional  cleavage  due  to  economic  development. 
Fourth,  in  a  deep  and  wide-spread  growth  of  the 

1  Madison's  Journal,  Hunt  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  353. 


172          Washington  and  Lincoln 

spirit  of  democracy.  Amid  these  changes  were 
two  opposing  tendencies  in  government,  the  centri 
fugal  and  centripetal.  These  changes  and  tend 
encies  forced  upon  the  leaders  the  problem  of 
government.  In  trying  to  solve  this  problem,  the 
old  questions  arose.  The  answers  given  to  these 
questions  did  not  contradict  those  as  given  by 
Washington  and  the  Constitutional  group  of  1787. 
And  yet  the  answers  are  not  the  same.  What  is 
the  difference?  Is  it  not  this? — Washington  stood 
in  the  early  dawn  of  the  composite  empire.  The 
stars  were  only  fading  from  the  sky.  The  grey 
streamers  of  light  were  in  the  East.  The  mist  was 
upon  hill  and  valley.  And  in  the  dim  light  of 
passing  night  and  coming  day,  he  saw  the  rocks 
and  trees  of  government.  Now,  however,  in  the 
year  1830,  the  morning  of  the  composite  empire  is 
further  advanced.  The  stars  have  melted  away. 
The  sun  is  rimming  the  horizon.  The  mists  have 
lifted.  And  in  the  sparkle  of  the  clear  air,  the 
rocks  and  trees  of  government  are  clearly  dis 
cerned.  It  is  the  era  of  definition. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861 

ON  March  4,  1861,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  extended  the  Bible,  and  the  Presi 
dent-elect,  placing  his  hand  upon  it,  said:  "I, 
Abraham  Lincoln,  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will 
faithfully  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability, 
preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. " 

The  great  leader,  in  the  act  of  taking  the  oath, 
is  for  a  brief  moment  the  central  figure  in  a  national 
tableau. x  Standing  in  the  portico  by  his  side  are 
two  men,  Breckinridge  from  Kentucky  and  Doug 
las  of  Illinois.  The  one,  as  the  retiring  President 
of  the  Senate,  is  present  in  his  official  capacity. 
In  sympathy  he  is  elsewhere,  for  in  time  he  will 
turn  away  from  the  capitol,  join  the  Confederate 
army,  and  do  his  best  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union.  The  other,  the  recent  leader  of  a  great 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay,  A  History,  vol.  iii.,  p.  326.  This  page 
furnished  the  writer  his  suggestion  for  this  inaugural  group. 
However,  the  language  is  his  own,  and  the  thought  much  ampli 
fied  for  the  purpose  of  this  study. 

173 


174         Washington  and  Lincoln 

party,  is  more  than  a  mere  onlooker.  He  is  here 
to  witness  the  inauguration  of  a  man  whom  he 
knows  better  than  does  any  man  in  public  life. 
He  is  short  in  stature,  but  by  a  single  act  he 
suddenly  looms  large,  as  he  takes  the  hat  of  his 
victorious  antagonist.  For  by  this  act  he  seems 
to  hold  the  tall  hat  before  the  nation  and  say, 
"Political  differences  are  in  the  past.  In  this 
supreme  hour  I  am  for  the  Union. "  Here  is  the 
question  of  power  as  lodged.  Breckinridge  says 
it  is  in  the  States  forming  the  Union.  Douglas 
says  it  is  in  the  Union  as  formed  by  the 
States. 

And  standing  in  the  portico  is  the  venerable 
Roger  Taney,  now  eighty-four  years  of  age. 
Clad  in  his  robes,  he  is  the  representative  of  that 
Court  which  Washington  said  was  "the  keystone 
in  the  arch  of  the  Constitution. " x  It  is  a  strange 
juxtaposition  that  the  man  who,  in  his  official 
capacity,  had  said  that  the  "negroes  were  so  far 
inferior  that  they  had  no  rights  which  the  white 
man  was  bound  to  respect,"2  should  administer 
the  oath  to  the  man  who  had  said  of  the  negro 
that  "in  the  right  to  eat  the  bread,  without  the 
leave  of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns, 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  ya.,  p.  434,  note. 
a  Dred  Scott  Decision,  1857;  19  Howard,  p.  407. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     175 

he  is  my  equal — and  the  equal  of  every  living 
man."1 

From  the  vantage  ground  in  the  portico  may 
be  seen  the  flashing  muskets  carried  by  soldiers 
stationed  on  the  roofs  of  buildings,  and  on  a  hill 
near  by  a  squadron  of  light  artillery,  with  an  aged 
army  officer  walking  uneasily  to  and  fro — the 
same  whom  Andrew  Jackson  sent  into  South 
Carolina  in  1830.  Somewhere  in  the  assembled 
group  are  men  from  the  Border  States — patriotic 
men,  now  torn  by  conflicting  emotions,  and 
wondering  whether  some  peaceable  solution  of  the 
difficulty  may  be  found.  Here  is  the  question  of 
power  as  expressed:  The  Chief  Justice,  the  symbol 
of  the  law.  The  soldiers  with  muskets  and  cannon, 
the  symbol  of  force  behind  the  law.  The  states 
men  from  the  Border  States — Blair  of  Maryland, 
Holt  of  Kentucky,  and  Bates  of  Missouri — the 
symbol  of  compromise  through  the  law. 

And  the  capitol  building  is  incomplete,  for  the 
dome  is  in  process  of  construction.  About  are 
blocks  of  granite  and  derricks  used  to  hoist  them 
into  place.  On  the  ground  is  the  bronze  statue  of 
Freedom,  intended  for  the  pinnacle  of  the  dome.  It 

1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  289.  It 
recalls  an  earlier  contrast,  that  of  Marshall  administering  the 
oath  to  Jefferson,  and  suggests  the  irony  of  history. 


176         Washington  and  Lincoln 

is  only  a  touch  of  imagination,  but  perhaps  Seward, 
Chase,  Sumner,  Wade,  Wilson,  and  Stevens 
are  standing  by  and  saying,  "Now  you  are  on  the 
ground  and  you  belong  here,  for  no  statue  of  Free 
dom  should  crown  the  capitol  building  of  the 
nation  while  four  million  human  beings  are,  under 
the  law,  nothing  more  than  things,  and  not  to  be 
taken  from  their  owners,  save  by  due  process  of 
law.  But  soon  the  shackles  will  fall  and  then  you 
will  be  hoisted  to  your  place. "  This  is,  in  a  new 
form,  the  little  printing-press  of  Garrison,  that 
rumbled  under  the  eaves  of  the  building  in  Boston. 
Here  is  the  question  of  power  as  abused. 

And  the  multitude  of  people?  The  record 
states  that  a  vast  throng  assembled.  They  stand 
silently  while  the  oath  is  administered .  They  have 
no  official  place  in  the  programme,  other  than  to 
march  in  the  inaugural  procession.  Yet  as  they 
look  upon  the  scene,  the  more  thoughtful  must  be 
saying  to  themselves:  "This  is  ours.  The  Presi 
dent-elect,  the  Justices,  Senators,  Congressmen, 
and  other  officers  constitute  the  government.  But 
this  government,  imposing  as  it  is,  is  the  servant 
of  something  stronger  than  itself,  namely  ourselves 
— the  people. "  This  is  the  preamble  to  the  Con 
stitution — "We  the  people  of  these  United  States. " 
Here  is  the  question  of  power  as  derived. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     17? 

And  the  atmosphere  which  envelops  this  tab 
leau.  Things  in  life  as  in  nature  are  modified  in 
aspect  and  proportion  by  atmosphere.  On  this 
inauguration  day  there  is  a  tenseness  of  mood 
which  indicates  a  change.  In  1787,  the  nation 
was  in  its  dawn,  with  the  mist  upon  the  valley, 
obscuring  the  rocks  and  trees  of  government,  and 
causing  them  to  appear  in  dim  outline.  In  1830, 
the  sun  was  well  above  the  Eastern  sky-line,  and, 
in  the  sparkling  morning  light,  the  trees  and  rocks 
were  sharply  clear.  Now  it  is  the  noon  hour  for 
the  nation,  and  the  sun  is  high  in  the  heavens. 
But  the  air  is  heavy  and  the  light  of  a  murky  hue; 
black  clouds  are  in  the  sky ;  the  birds  are  twittering 
and  the  cattle  in  the  fields  are  herding;  the  dust 
in  the  roadway  is  in  a  swirl;  a  storm  is  about  to 
break.  It  is  the  change  in  atmosphere,  which 
indicates  that  the  era  of  definition  has  passed  into 
the  era  of  application. 

But  does  the  great  leader  catch  the  symbolism 
of  all  this  as  he  takes  the  oath?  The  answer  to 
this  question  is  not  found  in  the  inaugural  address 
he  has  read.  At  this  moment  he  is  the  cynosure 
of  the  civilised  world,  and,  because  of  this,  his 
official  utterance  is  dominated  by  caution  and 
conciliation.  Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  go  be 
hind  the  inaugural  message  and  seek  a  revelation 

ia 


1 78         Washington  and  Lincoln 

of  his  mind  in  the  days  between  his  election  in 
November,  1860,  and  the  eventful  March  4, 
1 86 1.  During  these  days  he  was  a  perfect  illus 
tration  of  Carlyle's  words  as  applied  to  Frederick 
the  Great:  "A  man  politely  impregnable  to  the 
intrusion  of  human  curiosity ;  able  to  look  cheerily 
into  the  very  eyes  of  men,  and  talk  in  a  social  way 
face  to  face,  and  continue  intrinsically  invisible  to 
them."1  But  enough  is  now  known  to  furnish 
definite  answers  to  these  questions. 

It  is  evident  that  he  realised  that  the  mighty 
problem  of  power  in  government  was  being  swung 
over  from  definition  to  the  region  of  action.  The 
decisions  given  by  Marshall  and  Taney;  the  legis 
lative  debates  with  Webster,  Calhoun,  Hayne,  and 
John  QuincyAdams  as  the  contenders ;  the  proclama 
tion  by  Jackson,  and  the  compromises  of  Clay; 
all  these  had  failed  to  settle  the  controversy.  But 
though  the  National  era  with  its  ideas  had  proven 
inadequate,  the  men  of  this  generation  had  not 
moved  beyond  them.  There  is  a  theory  held  by 
psychologists  called  the  impulsiveness  of  con 
sciousness.  According  to  this  theory  ideas  tend 
to  pass  into  action  unless  hindered  by  opposite  or 
divergent  ideas.  And  this  theory  was  about  to 
have  a  stupendous  illustration  in  the  nation. 

1  Carlyle,  Frederick  the  Great,  Centennial  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  374. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861      179 

When  Webster  came  to  his  last  days  at  Marsh- 
field,  he  requested  his  faithful  attendant  to  anchor 
a  sail-boat  within  range  of  his  window.  And  then 
he  instructed  him  to  hoist  the  flag  to  the  topmast 
each  morning,  and  to  light  the  lamps  in  the  rigging 
each  evening.  For,  he  added,  "when  I  go  down, 
I  want  to  go  with  my  colours  flying  and  my  lamps 
burning. "  A  few  hours  before  he  died,  he  uttered 
his  last  words,  as  he  feebly  exclaimed — "I  still 
live!"'  In  a  larger  sense  than  he  intended, 
Webster  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  National  era 
still  lived.  And  the  ominous  fact  in  1861  is  that 
men  holding  opposite  conceptions  of  government 
as  enunciated  in  the  preceding  generation  insist 
that  their  flags  remain  at  the  topmasts.  And 
Lincoln's  colossal  task  is  to  lead  a  movement  for 
loosening  the  grip  upon  its  signal  halyards  of  one 
portion  in  the  nation,  and  the  tightening  the  grip 
of  another  portion,  that  one  flag  may  come  down 
and  the  other  remain  up. 

This  was  the  thought  in  the  mind  of  the  great 
leader  when,  on  December  21,  1860,  a  despatch 
having  been  handed  to  him  announcing  the 
attempted  secession  of  South  Carolina  the  day 
before,  he  turned  to  his  secretary  and  dictated  the 
following  to  his  friend  Washburn:  "  Please  present 

1  Curtis,  Life  of  Webster,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  685,  701. 


i8o         Washington  and  Lincoln 

my  respects  to  the  General  [Scott]  and  tell  him 
confidentially  I  shall  be  obliged  to  him  to  be  as 
well  prepared  as  he  can  either  to  hold  or  retake 
the  forts  as  the  case  may  require,  at  or  after  my 
inauguration."1  In  the  quiet,  decisive  voice  of 
the  leader,  the  click  of  triggers  on  muskets  levelled 
for  the  defence  and  destruction  of  government  can 
almost  be  heard. 

But  the  other  query,  whether  Lincoln  recognised, 
in  the  midst  of  the  sudden  change  of  atmosphere, 
the  old  questions  that  the  leaders  of  1776,  1787, 
and  1830  asked?  In  other  words,  was  he  to 
maintain  the  continuity  of  the  national  tradition 
by  recognising  certain  questions  about  govern 
ment  which  had  come  over  from  former  years,  at 
the  same  time  offering  his  contribution  to  a 
developing  tradition,  by  acting  under  changed 
conditions?  The  old  questions  are  in  his  inaugural 
address  either  by  direct  statement  or  inference. 
However,  it  is  possible  to  go  back  of  this  document, 
and  catch  a  glimpse  of  his  mind  at  the  time  he 
wrote  it. 

One  day  in  January,  1 86 1,  he  withdrew  from  the 
circle  of  his  friends  in  order  to  secure  absolute 
seclusion.  With  true  Western  hospitality  he  had 
met  callers  from  all  parts  of  the  nation  in  a  room 

1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  660. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     181 

set  apart  for  his  use  in  the  State  House  at  Spring 
field.  But  now  the  time  had  come  to  write  his 
inaugural  address.  So  finding  a  room  over  a  store 
on  the  main  street  of  the  prairie  village,  he  shut 
himself  away  for  three  days.  The  walls  of  the 
room  were  bare,  for  neither  from  the  canvas  did 
statesmen  look  down  upon  him,  nor  from  the 
titles  of  books  did  thinkers  greet  him.  Yet  he  was 
not  alone,  for  on  the  plain  table  were  four  docu 
ments: — the  Constitution,  Jackson's  Proclama 
tion,  Webster's  Debate  with  Hayne,  and  Clay's 
Compromise  Bills  of  1 850. T  The  era  had  changed, 
but  the  change  did  not  consist  in  the  raising  of  new 
questions  about  government,  but  in  a  new  rela 
tion  to  the  old  questions.  Lincoln's  task  was  to 
"preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution") 
as  defined  in  Webster's  reply;  through  the  use  of 
force  as  suggested  by  Jackson's  Proclamation;  and 
modified  by  Clay's  Compromise. 

That  he  was  under  the  spell  of  the  past  and  felt 
himself  in  a  great  historic  succession  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  when,  a  few  days  later,  he  said 
good-bye  in  the  little  station  by  the  iron  rails,  he 
asked  his  neighbours  to  remember  him  in  their 
prayers,  for  he  added:  "I  now  leave  not  knowing 
when  or  whether  ever  I  may  return,  with  a  task 

1Tarbell's  Life  of  Lincoln,  vol.  i.,  p.  403. 


1 82         Washington  and  Lincoln 

before  me  greater  than  that  which  rested  upon 
Washington."1 

Having  determined  Lincoln's  recognition  of  the 
questions  about  government,  and  his  appreciation 
of  the  new  attitude  he  must  take  to  these  questions, 
let  us  retrace  our  steps  and  notice  the  tendencies 
which  have  been  at  work  during  the  generation, 
and  which  now  culminate  and  create  the  era  of 
application.  Here,  the  reader  is  reminded  of  na 
tional  continuity  which  has  continued  unbroken 
through  the  years.  For  even  as  the  same  ques 
tions  have  arisen  in  the  different  eras,  the  same 
tendencies  have  connected  the  eras. 

First,  there  is  the  tendency  in  the  direction  of 
territorial  expansion.  In  1861,  the  god  Terminus 
has  reached  the  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  River  in 
the  South-west,  and  the  shore  of  the  Pacific  in  the 
West,  adding  1,219,537  square  miles,  and  making 
the  total  area  2,974,159  square  miles.2  From  the 
national  domain  ten  new  States  have  been  formed, 
giving  the  Republic  thirty-four  States  and  seven 
territories.  The  story  of  the  influence  of  terri 
torial  expansion  upon  the  national  government 
has  never  been  fully  told.  It  has  influenced 

1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  672. 
3  "A  Century  of  Population  Growth,  1790-1900,"  U.  S.  Census, 
P- 54- 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     183 

government  at  every  stage  of  its  development.  In 
1763,  it  raised  the  question  of  imperial  control  as 
regards  taxation  and  led  to  the  war  of  1776. 
Now,  beginning  with  the  purchase  of  Louisiana, 
then  the  acquisition  of  Texas,  and  still  later  the 
adjustment  of  the  Oregon  line,  it  raises  the  ques 
tion  of  imperial  control  as  regards  slavery,  and 
leads  to  the  war  in  1861. 

In  1820,  the  great  Democrat  who  had  carried 
through  the  supreme  imperial  task  in  our  history 
by  purchasing  the  area  from  the  Mississippi  River 
to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  said  when  he  heard  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise: 

This  momentous  question,  like  a  fire-bell  in  the 
night,  awakened  and  filled  me  with  terror.  I  consid 
ered  it  at  once  as  the  knell  of  the  Union.  It  is  hushed 
indeed  for  the  present.  But  this  is  a  reprieve  only, 
not  a  final  sentence.  The  coincidence  of  a  marked 
principle,  moral  and  political,  with  a  geographical  line, 
once  conceived,  I  feared  would  never  be  obliterated 
from  the  mind ;  that  it  would  be  recurring  on  every 
occasion  and  renewing  visitations,  until  it  would 
kindle  such  mutual  and  mortal  hatred  as  to  render 
separation  preferable  to  eternal  discord.1 

Jefferson  was  right  in  finding  in  this  expansion 
the  cause  for  controversy.  For  the  question  then 
arose,  and  continued  for  more  than  a  generation, 

1  Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  x.,  p.  157. 


1 84         Washington  and  Lincoln 

whether  the  control  over  the  new  territory  was 
imperial,  and  if  so,  what  was  the  nature  of  that 
control ?  In  1 850,  another  compromise  was  effected, 
and  the  principle  of  "Congressional  non -inter 
ference"  was  declared  in  New  Mexico  and  Utah. 
In  1854,  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  was  passed, 
which  enunciated  the  doctrine  of  "popular  sover 
eignty,"  and  by  statute  repealed  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  In  1857,  came  the  Dred  Scott  decis 
ion  with  its  obiter  dictum  that  the  slave  has  not 
the  rights  of  a  citizen,  and,  not  being  a  citizen  but 
property,  slavery  is  constitutional  in  the  terri 
tories.  But  whatever  form  the  controversy  as 
sumed,  the  question  at  issue  was  always  the  result 
of  expansion  and  involved  imperial  control.  And 
curiously,  as  England  in  1765  differentiated 
between  the  home  country  and  the  colonies  in 
legislation,  so  now  does  the  nation,  as  between  the 
composite  empire  formed  by  the  States  and  the 
territories  as  the  property  of  the  empire  thus 
formed.  For  all,  save  a  few  extremists,  are  agreed 
that  the  States  forming  the  empire  have  the  right 
under  the  Constitution  to  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions.  The  contention  arises  as  to  the  nat 
ure  and  extent  of  imperial  control  in  the  terri 
tories,  as  it  arose  during  the  i8th  century  regarding 
control  in  the  colonies. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     185 

Behind  this  controversy  over  imperial  control 
in  the  national  domain  was  the  constant  pressure 
of  slavery  as  a  sectionalising  influence.  In  1861, 
sectionalism  as  a  tendency  has  reached  its  apogee. 
There  is  a  saying  that  a  difference  in  degree,  if 
sufficiently  great,  constitutes  a  difference  in  kind. 
The  black  clouds  in  the  sky  may  be  larger  in  the 
afternoon  than  in  the  morning;  but  if  enough 
larger,  a  storm  comes.  So  with  sectionalism, 
which  has  grown  to  such  an  extent  that  a  change 
in  atmosphere  has  come.  In  the  South,  King 
Cotton  is  absolute.  In  the  passing  of  a  genera 
tion,  the  area  devoted  to  the  black  traffic  has 
doubled ;  the  number  of  slaves  has  almost  doubled ; 
the  average  price  paid  for  slaves  has  more  than 
doubled ;  and  the  money  received  annually  for  the 
cotton  crop  has  doubled  twice  over. 

With  this  economic  development  has  come  a 
corresponding  change  in  moral  sentiment.  The 
theory  of  mitigation  by  scattering  is  forgotten. 
Now  men  look  upon  slavery  as  an  institution  to 
be  cultivated  in  the  States  and  protected  in  the 
national  domain.  The  necessary  evil  of  1830  has 
become  the  positive  good,  sanctioned  by  Scripture 
and  justified  by  civilisation.  An  exalted  enthusi 
ast  borrows  the  sober  thought  of  the  leaders  and 
gives  excessive  statement  to  it  by  saying  that  the 


186         Washington  and  Lincoln 

cotton  crop  is  "the  gravitating  power  that  keeps 
the  civilised  world  in  its  proper  orbit  as  it  whirls 
through  the  grand  cycles  of  its  existence.  "r 

But  a  change  has  taken  place  in  the  North, 
which  in  a  modified  sense  must  be  considered  a 
sectional  tendency,  although  its  ultimate  end  was 
the  destruction  of  sectionalism.  The  last  word 
has  not  been  said  upon  the  influence  of  abolition 
ism.  It  is  an  open  question  whether  the  extreme 
sectionalism  of  the  South  was  the  result  of  aboli 
tionism  in  the  North,  or  whether  the  spread  of 
abolitionism  in  the  North  was  due  to  extreme 
sectionalism  in  the  South.  King  Cotton  never 
had  undisputed  sway  in  the  North.  In  the  earlier 
days,  however,  men  were  disposed  to  doff  their 
hats,  if  not  to  kneel  in  his  presence.  Now  he  is 
in  a  bad  way.  And  the  explanation  for  this  may 
be  traced,  in  a  measure,  to  the  heroic  work  of 
Garrison  and  his  followers.  To  be  sure,  abolition 
ism  in  its  original  form  no  longer  exists.  It  did 
its  work,  and,  about  1840,  disappeared.  But  as  the 
seed  which  disappears  in  the  ground  reappears  in 
another  form  in  the  harvest,  so  with  this  move 
ment.  Moral  agitation,  which  had  doubtless 
forced  the  South  to  defend  slavery  on  scriptural 
grounds,  gave  way  to  political  organisation. 

1  Smith,  Parties  and  Slavery,  p.  181. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     187 

The  possibilities  of  this  political  organisation 
are  seen  in  the  fact  that,  whereas  the  slave-holding 
States  increased  in  population  in  the  decade  end 
ing  with  1860  only  27.33  per  cent.,  the  free  States 
increased  41.16  per  cent.  These  possibilities  are 
now  realised,  for  a  national  political  party  has 
come  into  power  which  takes  as  its  policy  the 
right  under  the  Constitution  to  extend  imperial 
control  over  the  national  domain  and  prohibit 
therein  the  existence  of  slavery.  As  this  party 
derives  its  support  entirely  from  the  North,  in 
cluding  a  slight  support  from  the  Border  States, 
it  is,  for  the  time  being,  a  sectional  tendency. 

With  these  expanding  and  sectionalising  tend 
encies  were  the  old  tendencies  known  as  the  centri 
fugal  and  the  centripetal.  A  reading  of  the  lit 
erature  in  this  period  shows  a  relative  absence  of 
discussion  over  these  tendencies.  There  is  nothing 
on  a  par  with  the  controversies  in  those  early  State 
conventions  called  to  ratify  the  Constitution. 
Neither  is  there  anything  to  remind  one  of  the 
masterful  decisions  handed  down  by  John  Mar 
shall  or  the  profound  debates  of  Calhoun  and 
Webster.  The  explanation  for  this  may  be  in  the 
fact  that  about  all  has  been  said  that  can  be  said. 
Perhaps  another  explanation  is  the  fact  that,  as 
this  is  an  era  of  action,  words  count  for  less  than 


i88         Washington  and  Lincoln 

at  other  times.  Whatever  the  explanation  is,  the 
fact  remains  that  no  added  word  is  said  on  either 
side.  Read  Marshall  on  McCullough  vs.  Mary 
land,  Cohens  vs.  Virginia,  or  Webster  in  reply  to 
Hayne ;  study  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolu 
tions  as  written  by  Madison  and  Jefferson,  or 
Disquisitions  on  Government  by  Calhoun,  and  you 
have  the  argument. x 

It  would,  however,  be  a  mistake  to  assume  that 
the  tendencies  are  not  at  work,  because  the  argu 
ments  have  long  since  been  made.  For,  at  this 
time,  a  leadership  as  adroit  as  any  exercised  by 
Jefferson  or  Hamilton  in  their  palmiest  days  is 
shaping  these  tendencies  to  proportions  more 
imposing  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the 
nation. 

In  the  South,  the  centrifugal  tendency  on  a 
stupendous  scale,  under  the  superb  leadership  of 
Jefferson  Davis,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Benja 
min,  is  throwing  the  power  away  from  the  whole 
at  the  centre,  to  the  parts  on  the  circumference, 
at  the  same  time  drawing  some  of  the  parts  to 
another  centre,  and  forming  a  sectional  whole. 
It  is  a  sort  of  smaller  centripetal  tendency  working 
within  a  larger  centrifugal.  In  other  words,  it  is 

1  The  exception,  of  course,  is  the  doctrine  of  secession.  But  this 
is  a  logical  deduction  from  the  doctrine  of  nullification. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     189 

the  doctrine  of  State  Rights  being  modified  by  the 
necessities  of  sectionalism.  That  this  leadership 
is  adroit  admits  of  no  doubt.  In  the  Presidential 
election  of  1860,  the  three  candidates  that  oppose 
the  Republican  candidate  divide  the  vote  of  the 
South.  These  three  candidates  differ  from  one 
another.  Breckinridge  stands  for  slavery  regard 
less  of  the  Union.  Bell  stands  for  the  Union 
regardless  of  slavery.  And  Douglas  seems  to 
stand  for  the  Union  and  slavery.  When  the  vote 
is  counted  and  announced  on  the  morning  of 
November  7th,  it  is  found  that  the  combined  vote 
of  Bell  and  Douglas  is  greater  in  the  Southern 
States  by  134,877  than  the  vote  of  Breckinridge.1 
Yet  within  three  months,  seven  States  secede  and 
form  the  Southern  Confederacy.  And  within  a 
few  months  four  more  States  join  it,  including  the 
State  of  George  Washington  and  John  Marshall. 
This  sudden  shifting  and  marshalling  of  sentiment 
is  without  parallel  in  history. 

But  in  the  North  the  centripetal  tendency,  on  a 
more  quiet  yet  equally  vast  scale,  is  drawing 
power  from  the  parts  on  the  circumference  to  the 
whole  at  the  centre,  at  the  same  time  throwing  the 

1  Stanwood,  History  of  Presidential  Elections,  p.  234.  The 
popular  vote  was  as  follows:  Lincoln,  1,866,452;  Douglas, 
I»376,957;  Breckinridge,  849,781;  Bell,  588,879. 


190         Washington  and  Lincoln 

parts  away  from  the  Southern  sectional  whole. 
It  is  a  sort  of  centrifugal  tendency  working  within 
a  larger  centripetal.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  national 
ism  being  intensified  by  the  danger  of  sectionalism. 
The  South  finds  its  argument  in  the  brain  of  Cal- 
houn,  who  revelled  in  the  historical  fact  of  the 
compact  of  thirteen  States  in  1787.'  The  North 
finds  its  argument  in  the  brain  of  Webster,  who 
gloried  in  a  nation  expanding  beyond  that  of  the 
thirteen  States.  The  Southern  argument  is  more 
historical  than  actual.  The  Northern  argument 
is  more  actual  than  historical.  On  December  20, 
1860,  the  convention  of  South  Carolina  met  and 
passed  its  famous  resolution  of  secession,  which 
attracted  as  much  attention  by  its  brevity  as  its 
assertion.  It  read  as  follows : 

We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  in 
convention  assembled,  do  declare  and  ordain  and  it  is 
hereby  declared  and  ordained  that  the  ordinance 
adopted  by  us  in  convention  on  the  23d  of  May  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  seventeen  hundred  and  eighty-eight, 
whereby  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
ratified,  and  all  the  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the  Gen 
eral  Assembly  of  this  State  ratifying  amendments  of 
said  Constitution  are  hereby  repealed,  and  the  Union 

1  Calhoun  in  his  later  writings  seems  to  have  abandoned  the 
compact  theory.  But  the  averagp  mind  in  the  South  failed 
to  follow  his  distinctions  and  held  to  the  theory  in  its  simplest 
form. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     191 

now  subsisting  between  South  Carolina  and  the  other 
States,  under  the  name  of  the  "  United  States  of 
America,"  is  hereby  dissolved.1 


This  statement  of  South  Carolina,  which  may 
be  accepted  as  typical  of  all  the  seceding  States,  is 
based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  States,  not 
the  people  of  the  States,  formed  the  Union  at  the 
beginning.  The  North  might  grant  this  assump 
tion,  although,  at  the  best,  it  is  but  a  reasonable 
assumption,  and  still  have  the  stronger  end  of  the 
argument.  For  the  all-important  question  is  not 
what  did  men  intend  in  1787,  but  what  did  men 
feel  in  1 86 1.  In  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  Alex 
ander  Hamilton  impatiently  remarked  that  he 
was  weary  of  discussions  based  upon  musty  parch 
ments.  While  the  Constitution  could  hardly  be 
called  a  musty  parchment,  the  arguments  ad 
vanced,  based  upon  the  intentions  of  the  men  who 
wrote  it,  "certainly  lacked  reality.  The  fact  upon 
which  the  North  based  its  argument  in  the  last 
analysis,  and  which  was  shot  through  and  through 
with  reality,  was  that  the  Union  now  did  not  con 
sist  of  thirteen  but  of  thirty-four  States.  The 
Southern  position  may  be  illustrated  by  the  story 
told  in  connection  with  a  meeting  of  scientists  at 

1  MacDonald,  Select  Documents,  p.  441. 


192         Washington  and  Lincoln 

a  mountain  resort.  One  of  the  members  of  the 
convention,  looking  from  his  window  in  the  hotel, 
saw  another  member  struggling  with  a  boulder 
on  the  hillside.  He  called  to  him  and  inquired 
what  he  was  doing.  The  reply  came  back  that 
"he  was  moving  the  boulder  up  the  hill  about  three 
feet,  in  order  that  it  would  fit  in  with  his  theory.  " 
The  huge  boulder  in  1861  was  the  fact  of  thirty- 
four  not  of  thirteen  States.  The  South  must  move 
the  boulder,  in  order  to  fit  the  argument  into  the 
fact.  But  it  could  not  be  moved. r 

The  strength  of  the  Northern  position  may  best 
be  stated  in  the  words  of  a  distinguished  Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  himself  a  Southerner,  who 
wrote  with  the  conflict  in  retrospect.  He  says: 

In  1789,  the  States  were  the  creators  of  the  Fede 
ral  government;  in  1861,  the  Federal  government 
was  the  creator  of  a  large  majority  of  the  States.  In 
1789,  the  Federal  government  had  derived  all  the 

1  Moses  Coit  Tyler  says:  "As  the  earlier  Whig  doctrine 
for  the  rejection  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  general  government 
meant  what  in  the  iQth  century  we  have  commonly  known  as 
Nullification,  so  the  later  Whig  doctrine  of  separation  from  the 
empire  meant  precisely  what  we  now  mean  by  the  word  Seces 
sion. " — Literary  History  of  Am.  Rev.,  vol.  i.,  p.  477.  This 
attempt  to  find  a  historic  parallel,  which  is  made  by  some  recent 
writers,  is  far-fetched.  The  Southern  States  never  denied  their 
representation  in  the  imperial  system  against  which  they  rebelled. 
The  thirteen  colonies  denied  that  in  any  real  sense  they  were 
represented  in  the  imperial  system.  This  distinction  is  so  funda 
mental  that  it  makes  meaningless  the  attempted  parallelism. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     193 

powers  delegated  to  it  by  the  Constitution  from  the 
States;  in  1861,  a  majority  of  the  States  derived  all 
their  powers  and  attributes  as  States  from  Congress 
under  the  Constitution.  In  1789,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  were  citizens  of  States  originally  sover 
eign  and  independent;  in  1861,  a  vast  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States  were  citizens  of  States 
that  were  originally  mere  dependencies  of  the  Fed 
eral  government,  which  was  the  author  and  giver  of 
their  political  being.1 

Justice  Lamar  assumes  the  historical  accuracy  of 
Calhoun's  contention,  but  recognises  the  actual 
potency  of  Webster's  reasoning.  The  national 
domain  was  the  determining  factor  which  made 
possible  the  Confederation  in  1781.  Now,  after 
eight  decades,  this  domain,  carved  into  States, 
again  augments  the  centripetal  tendency,  and 
holds  the  Union  for  its  supreme  test. 

Such  were  the  tendencies  which  had  been  at 
work  through  the  generation,  which  gave  occasion 
for  the  conflict  of  ideas,  which  ideas,  having  per 
sisted,  create  the  era  of  action.  Let  us  now  return 
to  the  great  leader,  who,  having  taken  the  oath  to 
" preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution," 
will  in  the  fulfilment  of  that  oath  demonstrate  that 
he  is  the  commanding  personality  in  the  period, 
even  as  Washington  was  in  1776  and  1787. 

1  Curry,  The  South,  p.  187. 
13 


194         Washington  and  Lincoln 

First,  as  the  Bible  is  closed,  and  he  leaves  the 
portico  of  the  capitol,  he  journeys  down  Pennsyl 
vania  Avenue  in  company  with  the  retiring  Presi 
dent  and  enters  the  White  House.  There  is  a  story 
which  has  come  down  from  the  day,  which,  though 
not  vouched  for,  is  so  in  harmony  with  his  known 
position  that  it  might  well  be  true.  Washington's 
portrait,  hanging  on  the  wall  of  the  Executive 
Mansion,  in  keeping  with  the  occasion  had  been 
draped  with  the  American  flag.  It  is  said  that 
Lincoln,  upon  entering  the  room,  walked  over  to 
the  portrait,  stood  in  silent  meditation  for  some 
time,  after  which  he  was  heard  to  repeat,  as  to 
himself,  the  words  from  his  inaugural:  "I  hold  in 
the  contemplation  of  universal  law  and  the  Consti 
tution,  that  the  Union  of  these  States  is  perpetual.*' 
Then  with  one  of  those  rare  gestures,  awkward, 
but  tremendously  impressive,  he  swung  his  long 
arm  out  from  the  shoulder,  extended  the  index 
finger  of  his  big,  bony  hand,  and  pointing  at  the 
flag  exclaimed  in  half- subdued  tones,  "Not  one 
star  on  that  blue  field  shall  be  blotted  out." 
Only  a  few  words.  He  had  stated  the  argument 
at  length  on  many  occasions.  With  Marshall  and 
Webster  as  text-books,  he  had  taught  the  great 
truth  of  the  Union  now  and  for  ever,  one  and 
inseparable.  But  now  the  time  for  argument  has 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861      195 

passed.  The  storm  is  impending.  As  he  takes 
up  the  awful  load  of  government  he  can  only  pause, 
and,  in  the  presence  of  the  Father  of  his  Country, 
respond  in  spirit  to  the  toast  of  other  days — 
"Another  hoop  for  the  barrel  or  more  cement  for 
the  Union" — and  answer,  as  the  great  leader  in  the 
presence  of  whose  portrait  he  now  is,  "More 
cement  for  the  Union. "  The  old  question  of  the 
lodgment  of  power. 

Second,  let  us  go  with  him  to  the  field  of 
Gettysburg.  It  is  November  19,  1863.  The 
occasion  is  the  dedication  of  a  cemetery  for  the 
soldiers  of  the  North  who  had  fallen  in  the  battle 
of  the  preceding  July.  As  the  brave  ones  from 
seventeen  loyal  States  had  given  up  their  lives,  it 
seemed  fitting  that,  after  the  formal  oration  by 
Edward  Everett,  the  dedication  proper  should  be 
made  by  the  President  of  the  nation — and,  as  the 
invitation  stated,  accompanied  with  a  few  remarks. 
And  so  on  the  day  appointed  the  great  leader 
appears,  draws  from  his  pocket  a  scrap  of  brown 
paper,  adjusts  his  glasses,  and  reads  a  few  words — 
words  which  will  live  as  long  as  man  remembers. 

Before  quoting  the  closing  lines  in  this  word 
cameo,  engraved  upon  the  heart  of  humanity, 
think  for  a  moment  of  Lincoln  in  relation  to 
Washington  as  regards  government. 


196         Washington  and  Lincoln 

Notice,  as  you  recall  the  writings  of  each,  that 
whereas  Washington  rarely  refers  to  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  and  frequently  to  the  Con 
stitution,  Lincoln  less  frequently  refers  to  the 
Constitution,  and  more  frequently  to  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence.  The  distinct  impression 
is  made,  as  the  utterances  of  Lincoln  are  stud 
ied,  that  he  lived  in  the  atmosphere  of  1776, 
rather  than  of  1787.  This  does  not  mean  that 
1787,  in  his  thought,  contradicted  1776,  but  it 
does  suggest  that  he  thought  more  about  the 
era  that  emphasised  the  freedom  of  man,  than 
about  the  era  that  insisted  upon  the  protection 
of  property. 

There  are  a  few  words  in  the  first  inaugural,  in 
which  Lincoln  seeks  the  origin  of  the  Union  back 
in  the  Articles  of  Association  in  1774,  and  then 
traces  the  Union  through  the  Declaration  of  1776, 
on  through  the  Articles  of  Confederation  in  1778, 
to  the  Constitution  in  1787.  The  words  are  of 
interest,  not  because  of  their  argumentative  value, 
for  they  rather  weaken  than  strengthen  the  ar 
gument,  but  because  they  afford  a  glimpse  into 
Lincoln's  mind.  In  thought  he  lingered  in  the 
era  of  Sam  Adams  and  Patrick  Henry,  rather  than 
that  of  Rufus  King  and  Alexander  Hamilton.  On 
Washington's  Birthday  in  1861  in  the  Hall  of 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     197 

Independence,  he  said:  "I  can  say  in  return,  sirs, 
that  all  the  political  sentiments  I  entertain  have 
been  drawn,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  draw 
them,  from  the  sentiments  which  originated  in 
and  were  given  to  the  world  from  this  hall.  I 
have  never  had  a  feeling,  politically,  that  did 
not  spring  from  the  sentiments  embodied  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence."1 

And  so,  on  this  autumn  day  in  1863,  as  he  reads 
the  few  words  from  the  scrap  of  paper,  he  naturally 
begins  with  the  Declaration  of  Independence: 
"Fourscore  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers 
brought  forth  on  this  continent,  a  new  nation, 
conceived  in  liberty,  and  dedicated  to  the  proposi 
tion  that  all  men  are  created  equal."  Now  read 
the  closing  words:  "That  we  here  highly  resolve 
that  these  dead  shall  not  have  died  in  vain:  that 
this  nation  under  God  shall  have  a  new  birth  of 
freedom:  and  that  government  of  the  people,  by 
the  people,  and  for  the  people  shall  not  perish 
from  the  earth. "  Lincoln  here  stands  with  John 
Quincy  Adams,  and  gives  classic  expression  to 
that  which  the  "old  man  eloquent"  struggled  for. 
He  goes  back  of  Washington  in  the  Constitutional 
convention  to  the  Revolutionary  group  in  the 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed., 
vol.  i.,  p.  690. 


198         Washington  and  Lincoln 

Declaration  of  Independence  to  find  the  source  of 
power  in  government. 

Third,  let  us  study  Lincoln  in  the  administration 
of  government.  As  he  assumed  the  responsibili 
ties  of  office,  seven  States  in  the  South  were  by 
resolution  out  of  the  Union.  The  evidence  is 
clear  that  the  intent  and  expectation  of  the  South 
ern  leaders  was  to  leave  the  Union  in  peace.  The 
South  did  not  believe  the  North  would  interfere 
with  their  going.  The  North  did  not  believe  the 
South  would  in  fact  go.  But  in  this  both  the 
North  and  South  were  mistaken. 

In  his  inaugural  address  Lincoln  said:  "In  your 
hands,  my  dissatisfied  fellow-countrymen,  and  not 
mine,  is  the  momentous  issue  of  civil  war.  The 
government  will  not  assail  you.  You  can  have 
no  conflict  without  being  yourselves  the  aggres 
sors.  "  And  it  is  a  matter  of  common  history, 
how,  after  the  inauguration,  almost  single-handed, 
he  matched  his  leadership  against  the  adroit 
Confederate  leadership,  and  manoeuvred  the 
South  into  a  position  in  which  it  literally  fulfilled 
his  words,  by  firing  on  the  flag  at  Sumter. 

There  is  no  need  to  consider  here  the  events  that 
followed  the  attack  on  the  fort  in  the  harbour  of 
Charleston,  except  as  they  show  Lincoln's  under 
standing  of  the  expression  of  power.  It  must  be 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     199 

admitted  that  the  lofty  ideal  of  power  formulated 
in  the  Constitutional  era  is  not  found  in  this  era. 
Lincoln  does  not  apply  power,  as  that  something 
in  government,  which,  expressed  through  law  and 
enacted  in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  is  made  opera 
tive  by  force,  which  usually  is  moral  and  some 
times  is  physical.  As  will  be  seen  later,  Lincoln 
gave  a  noble  revelation  of  power  used  in  the  spirit 
of  compromise,  though  balanced  by  a  use  of  moral 
and  physical  force,  but  he  did  not  express  the 
power  through  law  in  the  full  constitutional  sense. 
On  the  contrary  he  carried  executive  action  to  an 
extreme  hitherto  unknown  in  our  history. 

However,  in  order  to  do  Lincoln  justice,  in  his 
unique  expression  of  power  through  executive  acts, 
certain  facts  should  be  kept  in  mind.  First,  he  dealt 
with  a  tremendous  revolution,  which  had  as  its  pur 
pose  the  overthrow  of  government.  Second,  this 
being  a  composite  empire,  republican  in  form,  the 
revolution  meant  of  necessity  a  disarrangement  or 
cessation  of  governmental  functions  in  some  parts. 
Third,  in  the  Constitution,  under  which  he  was 
expected  to  act,  there  was  no  adequate  provision 
for  executive  action  in  time  of  revolution.  These 
are  facts  of  profound  significance  and  must  not  be 
forgotten  when  Lincoln's  use  of  "war  power"  is 
interpreted. 


200         Washington  and  Lincoln 

He  believed  it  to  be  his  duty,  because  of  these 
facts,  to  exceed,  if  necessary,  the  letter  of  the 
Constitution.  In  no  other  way  could  he  be  loyal 
to  his  oath  "to  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution. "  In  1787,  owing  to  the  "exigencies 
of  the  Union,"  Washington  went  beyond  the 
wording  in  the  call  for  a  convention,  and  with 
others  provided  a  "radical  cure."  Now  Lincoln 
goes  beyond  the  text  of  the  Constitution,  because 
the  Constitution,  which  for  him  is  the  symbol  of 
the  Union,  is  in  danger.  His  position  is  that  it  is 
wiser  to  save  the  Constitution  and  lose  consistency 
than  to  keep  consistency  and  lose  the  Constitution. 

This  does  not  mean  that  he  violated  the  Consti 
tution,  but  rather  that  he  applied  the  theory  of 
implied  powers  to  executive  action  in  a  time  of 
revolution.  Just  as  Marshall  half  a  century  before, 
owing  to  conditions  unforeseen  when  the  Constitu 
tion  was  written,  interpreted  it  in  a  way  to  meet 
those  conditions,  so  now  Lincoln,  confronted  by 
circumstances  which  the  framers  did  not  antici 
pate,  gave  to  himself,  as  President,  power  to  meet 
new  needs.  To  be  sure,  Marshall's  interpretation 
was  judicial,  and  therefore  an  interpretation  of 
power  through  the  law.  Lincoln's  interpretation 
was  executive  and  therefore  in  a  measure  outside 
the  law.  For  a  time,  it  must  be  confessed,  the 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     201 

government  became  one  not  of  law  but  of  a  man. 
It  was  a  dangerous  position  to  take,  but  perilous 
conditions  create  dangerous  positions.  And  fortu 
nately  for  the  nation,  Lincoln,  who  dared  to  be 
his  own  exponent  of  the  law,  was  true  to  his  con 
ception  of  power  as  derived  from  the  people,  and 
in  action  was  both  cautious  and  determined. 

The  three  illustrations  of  this  power  as  used 
through  executive  action  are:  First,  the  call  for 
troops  following  the  fall  of  Sumter.  *  Article  I, 
Section  8,  of  the  Constitution  reads  as  follows: 
"To  provide  for  the  calling  forth  the  militia  to 
execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrec 
tions,  and  repel  invasions. "  This  clause  is  found 
in  the  article  of  the  Constitution  which  defines 
the  composition  and  enumerates  the  powers  of  the 
legislative  branch  of  the  government.  And  because 
of  this  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  founders 
of  the  government  intended  that  this  power  should 
be  exercised  by  Congress.  But  Congress  was  not 
in  session  when  the  blow  at  the  Union  was  struck. 
It  did  not  convene  until  almost  three  months 


1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  34,  41. 
Lincoln  issued  this  first  call  under  authority  of  the  Act  of  1795. 
There  was  some  doubt  in  his  mind  as  to  the  constitutionality  of 
his  second  call  in  May,  1861,  for  in  his  message  to  Congress 
of  July  4,  1 86 1,  he  says:  "These  measures  whether  strictly  legal 
or  not,  etc."  Ibid.,  p.  59. 


202         Washington  and  Lincoln 

later.  Some  one  must  act  and  Lincoln  believed 
he  was  the  one. 

Second,  his  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.  On  April  27,  1861,  Lincoln  authorised 
General  Scott  and  other  officers  under  his  com 
mand  to  suspend  the  writ.1  A  few  days  later, 
attempting  to  act  under  the  suspension  in  Balti 
more,  the  order  came  before  Chief  Justice  Taney, 
then  in  the  city,  who  asserted  that  Lincoln  had 
violated  the  Constitution.2  This  raised  a  legal 
question  of  far-reaching  significance,  which  was 
discussed  during  the  four  years  of  the  war.  Article 
I,  Section  9,  of  the  Constitution  reads:  "The 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not 
be  suspended  unless  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion 
the  public  safety  may  require  it.  "  The  President 
defended  his  action  in  suspending  the  writ  by 
calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  clause  in  the 
Constitution  does  not  specify  who  shall  exercise 
the  right.  But  as  the  clause,  like  the  one  on  the 
militia,  is  in  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution,  and 
among  the  enumerated  powers  of  Congress,  it  is 
probable  that  the  President  was  mistaken. 

The  President's  position  was,  however,  unas 
sailable,  when,  passing  beyond  the  omission  in  the 

1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  39. 
a  Nicolay  and  Hay,  A  History,  vol.  iv.,  p.  175. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     203 

law,  he  said:  "Are  all  the  laws  but  one  to  go 
unexecuted,  and  the  government  itself  to  go  to 
pieces,  lest  that  one  be  violated?  Even  in  such  a 
case,  I  should  consider  my  official  oath  broken,  if 
I  should  allow  the  government  to  be  overthrown, 
when  I  might  think  the  disregarding  the  single 
law  would  preserve  it."  *  The  force  of  this  is  seen 
when  it  is  realised  that  a  rebellion  might  assume 
such  proportions  as  to  make  impossible,  for  a  time 
at  least,  the  assembling  of  Congress. 

Third,  his  relation  to  slaves,  which  culminated 
in  the  Emancipation  Proclamation.  There  is,  of 
course,  no  mention  of  this  in  the  Constitution. 
Here  Lincoln  was  as  extreme  in  action  as  in  his 
suspension  of  the  writ.  In  theory  he  carried  his 
executive  independence  farther,  for,  while  he  ad 
mitted  the  right  of  Congress  to  suspend  the  writ, 2 
he  denied  it  the  right  to  emancipate  the  slaves,  and 
refused  on  this  basis  to  sign  the  Reconstruction 
Bill  of  July,  1 864.3  Yet  he  claimed  for  himself 
the  right  to  issue  an  emancipation  proclamation 
to  apply  to  the  slaves  in  the  States  then  in  rebellion, 
and  based  this  claim  upon  Article  II,  Section  2, 
of  the  Constitution  which  says:  "The  President 

1 A  braham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed., 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  59,  60. 

a  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  407.  s  2bid,  p.  545. 


204         Washington  and  Lincoln 

shall  be  commander  in  chief  of  the  army  and  navy 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the 
several  States,  when  called  into  the  actual  service 
of  the  United  States."  When  he  acted  on  the 
question  of  emancipation,  as  will  be  seen  later,  he 
acted  from  military  necessity. 

It  should  be  said  that  Congress  sustained  Lin 
coln  in  the  use  of  power  by  executive  action,  when 
under  normal  conditions  such  power  would  be 
legislative,  or  as  with  emancipation,  by  constitu 
tional  amendment.  But  the  sanction  in  each 
instance  followed  the  act.  Thus  it  may  be  said 
that  Lincoln  when  confronted  by  the  "exigencies 
of  the  Union,"  used  the  power  of  government, 
sometimes  through  the  law,  at  times  outside  of  its 
strict  interpretation,  yet  always  for  the  mainte 
nance  of  the  law.  And  in  using  the  power  through 
executive  action,  he  was  sustained  by  the  legisla 
tive  branch  of  the  government. 

With  this  understanding  of  Lincoln's  attitude 
to  the  law  as  qualified  by  the  fact  of  revolution, 
let  us  now  consider  how  he  used  power  in  the 
spirit  of  compromise  as  balanced  by  force.  Com 
promise,  while  enriched  by  the  depth  of  his 
humanitarian  nature,  was  always  based  upon  an 
utilitarian  purpose,  namely,  to  save  the  Union. 
By  a  sudden  unforeseen  change,  the  emphasis 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     205 

changed  from  slavery  and  its  extension  in  the 
territories  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  In  a 
deeper  sense  than  he  realised  when  he  repeated  the 
words,  Lincoln's  task  was  to  "preserve,  protect, 
and  defend."  This  involved,  among  other  things, 
the  holding  of  the  Border  States  in  the  Union  and 
the  reorganisation  of  government  in  those  States 
which  attempted  to  leave  the  Union.  Practically, 
he  was  forced  to  admit  that  some  States  had  gone 
out  of  the  Union.  Sometimes  he  acted  upon  the 
fact,  and  again  upon  the  theory  that  the  Union 
was  indissoluble.  But  whether  he  acted  upon  one 
or  the  other,  his  controlling  spirit  was  compromise, 
in  so  far  as  it  did  not  interfere  with  his  dominant 
purpose  to  save  the  Union.  Or,  better  still,  in 
order  to  save  the  Union,  he  saw  the  need  of 
compromise. 

He  believed  that  the  maintenance  of  the  Union 
depended  upon  holding  Kentucky.  He  said:  "I 
think  to  lose  Kentucky  is  nearly  the  same  as  to 
lose  the  whole  game.  Kentucky  gone,  we  cannot 
hold  Missouri,  nor,  as  I  think,  Maryland.  These 
all  against  us,  and  the  job  on  our  hands  is  too  large 
for  us."1  To  accomplish  this  he  gave  two  posi 
tions  in  his  cabinet  to  men  from  the  Border  States. 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed., 
vol.  ii.,  81. 


206         Washington  and  Lincoln 

It  was  further  necessary  to  restrain  the  extreme 
anti-slavery  sentiment,  both  among  military  lead 
ers  and  civilians.  His  task  was  made  the  more 
difficult  because  of  the  unwarranted  assumption  of 
power  by  some  of  his  generals,  such  as  Fremont 
and  Hunter,  and  by  the  unjust  criticisms  from 
such  public  leaders  as  Horace  Greeley  and  James 
Russell  Lowell. 

In  the  summer  of  1861,  Greeley  wrote  him  that 
the  country  was  convinced  that  he  lacked  the 
ability  to  meet  the  situation.1  Later,  Lowell  ex 
claimed,  "How  often  must  we  save  Kentucky 
and  lose  our  self-respect.'*2  But  amid  the 
blunders  of  his  generals  and  the  criticisms  from 
his  supposed  followers,  the  great  man  never  lost 
his  poise  and  saved  Kentucky,  Maryland,  Missouri, 
and  Delaware  for  the  Union,  and  from  these  States, 
together  with  the  loyal  portion  of  Tennessee, 
threw  200,000  soldiers  against  the  Confederacy. 

He  also  believed,  that  in  the  maintenance  of  the 
Union  assistance  could  be  rendered  by  a  gradual 
resumption  of  the  functions  of  government  in  the 
States  then  in  rebellion.  If,  in  dealing  with  the 
Border  States,  he  acted  upon  the  fact  that  some 
States  had  gone  out  of  the  Union,  and  other  States 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay,  A  History,  vol.  iv.,  p.  365. 
3  Tarbell,  Life  of  Lincoln,  vol.  ii.,  p.  65. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     207 

might  follow,  in  dealing  with  Louisiana,  Arkansas, 
and  Virginia,  he  acted  upon  the  theory  that  no 
State  had  gone  out  of  the  Union,  and  therefore 
government  should  be  operative  in  every  State. 
He  based  his  action  upon  Article  IV,  Section  4, 
of  the  Constitution,  which  says:  "The  United 
States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union 
a  republican  form  of  government,  and  shall  pro 
tect  each  of  them  against  invasion. "  He  did  this 
work  by  executive  action,  aided  by  the  military, 
and  for  the  most  part  without  the  support  of 
Congress.  He  had  little  to  work  with,  as  seen  in 
the  loyal  government  of  Virginia  which  met  at 
Alexandria,  and  which  he  was  forced  to  speak  of 
as  simply  "a  nucleus  to  add  to."1  But  he  saw 
what  some  others  failed  to  see,  namely,  the  pos 
sibilities  of  larger  things,  and  the  basis  for  future 
action,  when  the  war  should  have  ended.  And  so 
he  closed  his  last  public  speech,  on  April  10,  1865, 
by  saying:  "Concede  that  the  new  government  of 
Louisiana  is  only  to  what  it  should  be  as  the  egg  is 
to  the  fowl,  we  shall  sooner  have  the  fowl  by 
hatching  the  egg  than  by  smashing  it.1*2  The 
leaders  in  Congress,  after  he  was  gone,  nearly 
smashed  the  eggs.  The  splendid  fowls  were  hatched 

'Abraham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed., 
vol.  ii.,  p.  620.  3  Ibid.,  p.  675. 


208         Washington  and  Lincoln 

in  the  South,  when,  after  a  bitter  experience,  the 
nation  returned  to  the  spirit  at  least  of  Lincoln's 
reconstruction  programme. 

As  has  been  intimated,  his  underlying  thought 
in  the  use  of  compromise  was  to  weaken  the 
armed  resistance  to  the  Union.  The  reconstructed 
governments,  weak  as  they  were,  served  as  "  back 
fires"  and  proved  exceedingly  troublesome  to  the 
Confederate  leaders.  The  Border  States,  whose 
populations  were  about  equally  divided  as  to 
secession,  tilted  now  to  one  side,  and  now  to  the 
other,  but  finally,  under  the  patient  and  skilful 
handling  of  Lincoln,  settled  in  the  Union.  But 
along  with  this  masterful  display  of  compromise 
was  the  use  of  physical  force.  For  this  was  stern 
war.  It  was  a  revolution,  where  physical  force 
must  be  used,  and  Lincoln,  with  a  relentless  per 
sistence  that  never  ceased,  hurled  the  armies  of 
the  loyal  portion,  like  huge,  round,  smooth  cannon- 
balls,  against  those  in  revolution. 

It  is  from  this  angle  that  his  treatment  of  the 
slaves  should  be  studied.  There  are  four  distinct 
and  progressive  positions  taken  by  Lincoln,  before 
the  final  position  is  taken  in  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment:  (i)  Slaves  coming  within  the  Union  lines 
are  no  longer  the  property  of  their  former  owners. 
(2)  Slaves,  as  property  of  those  in  rebellion,  come 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     209 

into  the  possession  of  the  United  States  apart 
from  judicial  procedure,  when  seized  by  the  Union 
armies.  (3)  All  slaves  in  the  States  in  rebellion, 
excepting  in  certain  portions  of  two  States,  are  by 
executive  proclamation  free.  (4)  The  slaves,  thus 
freed  by  proclamation,  may  be  armed  as  soldiers, 
and  enlist  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union. x  In 
taking  these  positions,  and  in  the  order  named, 
Lincoln  had  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  slave  popu 
lation  was  an  actual  physical  force,  which  might 
be  used  for  the  defence  of  the  Union.  In  1864,  as 
he  reviewed  his  own  position  he  wrote : 

Any  different  policy  in  regard  to  the  coloured  man 
deprives  us  of  his  help,  and  that  is  more  than  we  can 
bear.  We  cannot  spare  the  hundred  and  forty  or  fifty 
thousand  now  serving  us  as  soldiers,  seamen,  and 
labourers.  This  is  not  a  question  of  sentiment  or 
taste,  but  one  of  physical  force,  which  may  be  meas 
ured  and  estimated  as  horse  power  and  steam  power 
are  measured  and  estimated.  Keep  it  and  you  can 
save  the  Union.  Throw  it  away  and  the  Union  goes 
with  it.2 

But  with  this  appreciation  of  the  slaves  as  an 

*  The  provision  for  the  arming  of  the  freed  slaves  was  not  in 
the  draft  of  the  proclamation  issued  September  22,  1862.  It 
was  inserted  in  the  final  draft  of  January  i,  1863.  See  Nicolay 
and  Hay,  A  History,  vol.  vi.f  chapters  viii.  and  xi. 

a  Abraham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  564. 
14 


2io         Washington  and  Lincoln 

asset  in  the  struggle,  was  his  unerring  knowledge 
of  the  military  resources  of  the  loyal  States,  and 
his  determination  to  use  them  to  the  utmost. 
From  the  moment  that  Sumter  was  fired  upon, 
until  Lee  sheathed  his  sword  at  Appomattox,  Lin 
coln  never  wavered  in  his  purpose  to  use  physical 
force  not  only  to  defend  the  Union  but  to  crush 
the  rebellion.  When  McClellan  was  riding  around 
the  capitol,  Lincoln  said  he  would  gladly  hold 
his  horse,  if  he  would  only  win  a  battle.  When 
some  one  criticised  a  personal  weakness  of  Grant, 
his  reply  was:  "But  he  can  fight. "  When,  later, 
negotiations  were  started  with  peace  in  view, 
his  explicit  instructions  to  the  generals  were  to 
continue  their  operations  on  a  war  basis. 

Perhaps  a  single  illustration  will  suffice.  One 
morning  in  the  summer  of  1864,  Lincoln  enters  the 
War  Department.  Stanton,  the  great  Secretary, 
is  still  at  work,  for  he  seems  to  have  done  nothing 
else.  Lincoln  takes  his  accustomed  seat  by  the 
operator's  table.  It  is  an  awful  hour, — the  Wilder 
ness  with  its  carnage;  Spottsylvania  with  its  bloody 
angle ;  Cold  Harbour  with  its  slaughter.  Grant  is 
now  at  Petersburg  to  the  south  of  Richmond.  He 
had  said  that  he  would  take  Richmond  if  it  took 
all  summer.  But  summer  had  come  and  is  more 
than  half  gone,  and  Richmond  is  not  taken.  The 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     211 

North  is  growing  weary  of  the  awful  struggle. 
The  loss  of  life  is  appalling.  The  cry  is  going  up 
that  the  price  paid  is  too  great.  A  coloured 
woman,  Harriet  Tubman,  described  the  battle 
field,  and  people  grew  pale.  She  said:  "And  then 
we  saw  the  lightning  and  that  was  the  guns.  And 
then  we  heard  the  thunder  and  that  was  the  big 
guns.  And  then  we  heard  the  rain  falling  and 
that  was  the  blood  falling.  And  then  we  reached 
out  to  gather  in  the  craps,  and  it  was  dead  bodies 
that  we  reaped."1 

On  this  morning  a  message  is  handed  to  Lincoln 
from  Grant,  in  which  the  great  captain  suggests 
slipping  away  from  Petersburg  and  joining  Sheri 
dan  in  the  Shenandoah  Valley.  And  Lincoln 
immediately  dictates  a  reply  as  follows:  "Hold  on 
with  bulldog  grip  and  chew  and  choke  as  much  as 
possible."2  Strange  words  from  the  gentle  and 
tender  President.  The  man  who  would  leave  his 
carriage  in  the  roadway,  and  place  in  its  nest  a 
bird  with  a  broken  wing.  He  who  would  some 
times  disturb  the  strict  discipline  of  the  army 
because  of  his  inability  to  withstand  the  plea  of  a 
mother  for  her  boy  who  had  slept  at  his  post.  It 

*  Hart,  Abolition  of  Slavery,  p.  209. 

a  Abraham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed., 
vol.  ii.,  p.  563. 


212  -       Washington  and  Lincoln 

is  a  reversal  of  the  old  myth  of  Pygmalion  and 
Galatea.  The  warm-hearted,  lovable,  and  mag 
nanimous  counsellor  and  friend  turns  into  the 
cold  bit  of  marble.  And  why?  Because  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  land  is  imperilled. 

Lincoln,  then,  in  the  administration  of  govern 
ment  answers  the  question  of  power  by  saying, 
it  is  expressed  through  law,  qualified  by  extreme 
executive  action,  due  to  the  fact  of  revolution, 
which  power  is  used  in  the  spirit  of  compromise, 
and  made  effective  by  moral  and  physical  force. x 

Let  us  return  to  the  portico  of  the  capitol  build 
ing  as  Lincoln  delivers  his  second  inaugural  on 
March  4,  1865.  On  this  day,  had  any  in  the  vast 
throng  been  on  the  lookout  for  omens,  they  would 
have  commented  upon  the  fact  that  whereas  the 
first  inaugural  was  read  from  the  western  portico 
of  the  capitol,  the  second  is  now  read  from  the 
eastern  portico.2  It  is  the  East  with  its  promise 

1  More  space  is  given  to  the  consideration  of  Lincoln's  use  of 
the  "war  power,"  in  connection  with  the  expression  of  power  in 
government,  than  to  the  other  phases  of  his  work,  because  it  is 
the  most  distinctive  in  relation  to  the  problem  of  power. 

a  "Whilst  the  members  were  signing  it,  Doctor  Franklin  look 
ing  towards  the  President's  chair,  at  the  back  of  which  a  rising 
sun  happened  to  be  painted,  observed  to  a  few  members  near 
him,  that  painters  had  found  it  difficult  to  distinguish  in  their  art 
a  rising  from  a  setting  sun.  I  have,  said  he,  often  sat  in  the 
course  of  the  session,  and  in  the  vicissitudes  of  my  hopes  and  fears 
as  to  its  issue,  looked  at  that  behind  the  President  without  being 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     213 

that  is  now  faced.  And  what  changes  have  taken 
place.  In  the  four  years,  the  dome  of  the  building 
has  been  completed,  and  the  bronze  statue  of 
Freedom  is  no  longer  on  the  ground  but  on  the 
pinnacle,  buttressed  by  the  Xlllth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  which  has  passed  both  branches 
of  Congress.  In  the  inaugural  procession,  for  the 
first  time  in  the  nation's  history,  a  battalion  of 
coloured  troops  and  several  civic  organisations  of 
the  same  race  are  found.  The  conscientious  and 
able,  but  mistaken,  Taney  is  gone,  and  in  his  place, 
to  administer  the  oath  of  office,  is  Salmon  P.  Chase, 
an  abolitionist,  who  had  worked  through  political 
organisation. 

Lincoln,  still  the  commanding  personality  of 
the  group,  is  changed  in  appearance.  His  sec 
retary,  who  later  became  a  great  Secretary  of 
State,  referring  to  these  closing  days,  says: 

He  continued  always  the  same  kindly,  genial,  and 
cordial  spirit  he  had  been  at  first,  but  the  boisterous 
laugh  became  less  frequent  year  by  year ;  the  eye  grew 
veiled  by  constant  meditation  on  momentous  subjects ; 
the  air  of  reserve  and  detachment  from  his  surround 
ings  increased.  He  aged  with  great  rapidity. 


able  to  tell  whether  it  was  rising  or  setting.  But  now  at  length 
I  have  the  happiness  to  know  that  it  is  a  rising  and  not  a  setting 
sun." — Madison's  Journal,  Sept.  17,  1787,  vol.  ii.,  p.  397. 


214         Washington  and  Lincoln 

He  refers  to  two  life-masks,  the  one  made  in  1860 
and  the  other  about  this  time,  and  says  of  the  later  : 

The  other  is  so  sad  and  peaceful  in  its  infinite  re 
pose  that  the  famous  sculptor,  Augustus  Saint-Gau- 
dens,  insisted  when  he  first  saw  it  that  it  was  a  death- 
mask.  The  lines  are  set,  as  if  the  living  face,  like  the 
copy,  had  been  in  bronze ;  the  nose  is  thin  and  length 
ened  by  the  emaciation  of  the  cheeks ;  the  mouth  is 
fixed  like  that  of  an  archaic  statue;  a  look  as  of  one 
to  whom  sorrow  and  care  had  done  their  worst  without 
victory  is  on  all  the  features ;  the  whole  expression  is 
of  unspeakable  sadness  and  all-sufficing  strength. 
Yet  the  peace  is  not  the  dreadful  peace  of  death;  it  is 
the  peace  that  passeth  understanding. x 

The  lover  of  his  country  as  he  examines  these 
masks,  now  in  the  national  museum  at  the  capitol, 
catches  a  glimpse  of  the  sacred  and  tragic  meaning 
of  leadership  in  the  time  of  peril.  This  noble  spirit 
is  only  fifty-six  years  of  age  as  measured  by  the 
calendar,  but  he  is  a  very  old  man  as  measured  by 
experience. 

Lincoln  is  a  changed  man  in  thought.  A 
comparison  of  the  first  with  the  second  inaugural 
reveals  this.  In  the  first  it  is  the  statesman  with 
clear  conceptions  of  power  in  government  who 
speaks;  in  the  second  it  is  the  man  with  profound 
moral  convictions  who  speaks.  The  first  deals 

1  Century  Magazine,  November,  1890. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     215 

with  the  conditions  under  which  war  may  be 
averted.  The  second  drops  thought  as  a  lead 
into  the  mysterious  depths,  and  takes  a  sounding 
of  compensation,  as  it  relates  to  the  underlying 
cause  of  the  war,  namely,  slavery.  And  it  is 
Lincoln's  attitude  to  slavery,  as  seen  in  the  second 
inaugural,  that  registers  the  change. 

There  is  no  advance  or  change  in  his  conception 
of  power  lodged,  derived,  or  expressed  in  govern 
ment.  But  the  change  in  his  conception  of  power 
abused  in  government  is  unmistakable. 

In  the  first  inaugural,  he  says,  "I  have  no  pur 
pose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists. 
I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have 
no  inclination  to  do  so."1  When  he  read  the 
second  inaugural  he  had  interfered  with  slavery 
in  the  States,  and  had  approved  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  for  ever  prohibiting  slavery  in 
the  States. 

1  February  28,  1861,  the  House,  and  March  3d,  the  Senate, 
passed  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  read  as  follows : 
"No  amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  Constitution  which  will 
authorise  or  give  to  Congress  the  power  to  abolish  or  interfere 
within  any  State  with  the  domestic  institutions  thereof,  including 
that  of  persons  held  to  labour  or  service  by  the  laws  of  said 
State. "  It  is  this  amendment  which  Lincoln  referred  to  in  his 
first  inaugural.  It  was  never  submitted  to  the  States,  owing  to 
the  outbreak  of  the  war. 


216         Washington  and  Lincoln 

In  comparing  Lincoln's  position  in  1861  with 
that  of  1865,  it  should,  however,  be  said  that  the 
change  registered  is  one  of  method  rather  than 
conviction.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  in 
personal  conviction  he  ever  changed  on  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery.  From  early  manhood  until  death 
his  conception  was  as  clear  as  a  hound's  tooth  is 
clean.  He  saw  the  moral  meaning  of  slavery 
when  as  a  young  man  he  visited  New  Orleans. 
His  consistent  position  through  all  the  years  was 
that,  "if  slavery  is  not  wrong,  nothing  is  wrong. " l 

He  believed,  however,  that  slavery  under  the 
Constitution  was  a  domestic  institution  of  the 
States  and  not  to  be  interfered  with  by  the  general 
government.  Inasmuch  as  some  doubted  this, 
he  was  willing  to  advocate  the  adoption  of  an 
amendment  making  this  clear.  But  if  slavery 
could  not  be  interfered  with  in  the  older  States,  it 
could  be  prohibited  in  the  national  domain  and 
in  the  newer  States  carved  from  this  domain.  He 
believed,  and  this  is  the  important  fact,  that  by 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  newer  sections,  slavery 
would  ultimately  disappear  in  the  older  sections 
of  the  Union.  He  reversed  the  position  taken 
in  1820,  when  men  said  that  slavery  being  as  a 
cloud  in  the  sky  of  a  summer's  day,  the  scattering 

1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  508. 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     217 

of  the  cloud  would  cause  it  to  disappear.  He  said, 
restrict  slavery,  as  a  forest  fire  is  restricted  by 
clearing  around  it,  and  it  will  burn  itself  out. 

Then  came  the  war.  In  seeking  to  maintain  the 
government  during  the  war  he  used  the  slave  as  a 
military  asset.  In  order  to  use  him  to  the  fullest 
extent,  he  issued  the  Emancipation  Proclamation. 
Having  taken  the  shackle  from  the  slave  he 
refused  to  again  replace  it.  He  then  moved  for 
ward  to  the  only  tenable  position,  that  slavery 
having  caused  a  rebellion  for  the  overthrow  of 
government,  and  the  slave  having  been  used  for 
the  defence  of  government,  the  slave  should  be 
for  ever  free.  Hence  the  need  of  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  for  ever  prohibiting  slavery. 
This  having  passed  Congress,  he  can  say  in  his 
second  inaugural,  in  words  that  suggest  a  Hebrew 
prophet : 

Fondly  do  we  hope,  fervently  do  we  pray  that  this 
mighty  scourge  of  war  may  speedily  pass  away.  Yet 
if  God  wills  that  it  continue  until  all  the  wealth  piled 
up  by  the  bondsman's  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of 
unrequited  toil  shall  be  sunk,  and  until  every  drop  of 
blood  drawn  by  the  lash  shall  be  paid  by  another 
drawn  by  the  sword,  as  it  was  said,  three  thousand 
years  ago,  so  still  it  must  be  said,  The  judgments  of 
the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous  altogether. 

The  question  of  the  abuse  in  government  is 


2i8         Washington  and  Lincoln 

answered.  The  moral  justification  for  the  war  is 
the  overthrow  of  slavery.  Lincoln  began  on  this 
question  about  where  Washington  ended.  He 
ended  where  Garrison  began.1  There  is  nothing 
more  for  the  great  leader  to  do.  His  work  is 
ended.  He  has  trudged  across  the  prairie ;  climbed 
the  foot-hills ;  has  struggled  up  the  mountain-side ; 
he  is  almost  at  the  end  of  the  journey  and  is  very 
tired;  in  a  few  days  he  will  reach  the  top  of  the 
mountain  of  fame,  tarry  there  for  a  brief  moment 
and  be  silhouetted  forever  against  the  sky-line  of 
history.  Then  of  him  it  shall  be  said,  as  of  one 
of  old — "He  was  not,  for  God  took  him. " 

To  summarise  the  thought  of  this  chapter: 
The  Civil  War  group  with  Abraham  Lincoln  as  its 
commanding  personality  had  as  its  work  the  main 
tenance  of  government .  This  involved  the  mighty 
problem  of  power  in  government.  In  solving  this 
problem  amid  the  clash,  crash,  and  flash  of  war, 
the  great  questions  of  the  meaning  of  this  power 
were  raised.  In  considering  these  questions,  a 
new  and  final  answer,  under  the  strain  of  war,  was 
given  to  that  of  the  abuse  of  power. 

Viewed  as  a  governmental  struggle  and  connect- 

1  The  fact  that  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  forever 
prohibiting  slavery  was  thought  necessary,  was  a  historic  justifica 
tion  of  Garrison's  position  that  the  "Constitution  was  a  covenant 
with  death." 


The  Civil  War  Group  of  1861     219 

ing  the  era  with  the  preceding  eras,  the  statement 
is  this:  In  1776,  an  advanced  conception  of  politi 
cal  freedom  contended  against  the  attempt  to 
extend  the  system  of  imperial  control,  which  was 
under  a  reactionary  influence  in  English  history. 
This  protest  was  successful,  and  following  this,  in 
1787,  a  written  constitution  was  adopted  which 
created  a  composite  empire,  republican  in  form. 
In  1830,  under  the  stress  of  conditions  which  those 
who  formulated  the  Constitution  could  not  have 
foreseen,  the  composite  empire  was  defined,  and 
the  definitions  given  went  beyond  the  formulations 
made.  In  1861,  the  stupendous  question  was 
whether  the  Constitution,  as  formulated  in  1787, 
could  be  maintained,  by  an  application  of  the 
definitions  of  1830.  The  "more  perfect  Union," 
which  was  formed  under  the  leadership  of  Wash 
ington,  was  maintained  under  the  leadership  of 
Lincoln.  And  in  maintaining  the  Union,  slavery 
was  abolished  that  a  still  more  perfect  Union 
might  exist. 

As  the  era  closes  with  the  departure  of  the 
great  leader,  it  is  early  afternoon  in  the  nation's 
life.  The  air  is  clear;  the  clouds  are  dispersed;  the 
winds  have  died  away.  There  are  white  puffs 
floating  in  a  clear  blue  sky  and  the  sun  is  gently 
shining.  But  all  the  streams  are  swollen  and  the 


220         Washington  and  Lincoln 

corn  in  the  field  is  down ;  gullies  are  in  the  roads ; 
and  here  and  there  uprooted  trees  show  a  fierce 
storm's  wrath.  The  rain  had  fallen  in  torrents ;  the 
winds  blowing  a  gale  had  done  their  cruel  work, 
while  thunder  rumbled  and  lightning  flashed.  Now 
the  time  for  repair  and  restoration  has  come. ' 

1  "The  first  great  struggle  between  the  pro-slavery  and  anti- 
slavery  parties  began  in  the  Federal  convention,  and  ft  resulted 
in  the  first  two  of  the  long  series  of  compromises  by  which  the 
irrepressible  conflict  was  postponed  until  the  North  had  waxed 
strong  enough  to  confront  the  dreaded  spectre  of  secession,  and, 
summoning  all  its  energies  in  one  stupendous  effort,  exorcise  it 
forever.  From  this  moment  down  to  1865,  we  shall  continu 
ally  be  made  to  realise  how  the  American  people  had  entered  into 
the  shadow  of  the  coming  Civil  War  before  they  had  fairly 
emerged  from  that  of  the  Revolution ;  and  as  we  pass  from  scene 
to  scene  of  the  solemn  story,  we  shall  learn  how  to  be  forever 
grateful  for  the  sudden  and  final  clearing  of  the  air  wrought  by  that 
frightful  storm  which  men  not  yet  old  can  still  so  well  remember. " 
Fiske,  Critical  Period  of  American  History,  p.  256. 


The  Relation 

IT  is  now  possible,  having  examined  the  work  in 
government  during  five  periods,  to  say  two  things 
about  the  relation  between  Washington  and  Lin 
coln.  First,  the  relation  is  accentuated  by  the 
similarity  of  the  work  done  in  the  periods  of  which 
they  were  the  commanding  personalities.  In  each 
period,  the  central  problem  has  been  that  of  power 
in  government.  The  same  questions  as  to  the 
meaning  of  this  power  have  been  raised  in  attempt 
ing  to  solve  this  problem.  Second,  the  relation  is 
modified  by  the  difference  in  conditions  amid 
which  the  problem  has  appeared.  This  difference 
in  conditions  has  made  each  period  distinctive. 
Continuity  and  development  are  seen  in  the  history, 
and  similarity  and  difference  shown  in  the  relation. 

But  the  relation  between  Washington  and  Lin 
coln  is  something  closer  than  that  found  in  a 
comparison  of  their  work.  For  emerging  from  the 
work,  or  seen  through  it,  are  the  workmen.  And 
even  as  the  work  is  compared,  so  also  may  the 
workmen  be  compared.  That  is,  through  similar- 

221 


\ 


222         Washington  and  Lincoln 

ity  and  difference  in  the  qualities  of  leadership 
seen  in  the  workmen,  may  the  relation  between 
them  be  further  accentuated  and  modified.  Let 
us  begin  by  noting  the  differences  which  mod 
ify  and  then  pass  on  to  the  similarities  which 
accentuate  the  relation  between  them. 

must  be  admitted  that  Lincoln  was  superior 
to  Washington  in  the  work  of  government.  In 
saying  this,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  the  national 
career  of  Lincoln  was  distinctly  civil;  that  of 
Washington,  military  and  civil.  Washington 
may  be  seen  in  these  pages  presiding  over  the 
convention  of  1787,  but  he  needs  the  background 
of  battlefields.  The  lines  of  the  heroic  figure  of 
Lincoln  are  civil  even  though  it  appears  in  the 
midst  of  military  tumult.  Washington  was  by 
choice  a  country  gentleman,  through  necessity  a 
general,  and  from  a  sense  of  duty  a  statesman. 
Lincoln  was  by  training  a  lawyer,  from  desire  a 
political  leader,  and,  in  the  realisation  of  a  worthy 
ambition,  a  president.  Because  of  this,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  in  certain  respects  he  was  superior 
to  Washington  in  the  work  of  government. 

This  superiority  was  seen  in  his  mental  grasp  of 
the  philosophy  of  government. x     The  thoughts  on 

1  The  student  who  cares  to  go  into  the  speculative  side  of  our 
governmental  development,   should  read  A.   C.   McLaughlin's 


The  Relation  223 

political  science  were  as  morsels  of  appetising  food 
for  the  brain.  He  smacked  his  mental  lips  in 
anticipation  of  an  argument  on  public  affairs.  He 
was  a  "man  of  propositions. "  He  believed  in  the 
political  application  of  the  scriptural  words, 
^'Corne  now  let  us  reason  together. " 

rith  Washington  there  is  a  total  absence  of  the 
argumentative  habit  in  his  thinking.  A  syllogism 
in  logic  was  as  distasteful  to  him  as  a  noisy  demo 
crat  without  property.  He  probably  never,  save 
from  a  sense  of  duty,  abandoned  a  fox  hunt  for  a 
political  discussion.  He  kept  his  head  well  bal 
anced  on  his  shoulders,  and  was  superb  in  the 
exercise  of  judgment.  If  the  definition  of  an 
educated  man  be  one  able  to  suspend  judgment  in 
the  presence  of  exciting  ideas,  then  he  was  splen 
didly  educated.  An  example  of  this  is  his  attitude 
on  the  question  of  a  national  bank  as  Jefferson  and 
_Hamilton  presented  their  arguments. 

Lincoln,  however,  had  more  than  power  to  sus 
pend  judgment,  for  he  had  the  mental  initiative 
which  led  him  to  search  for  arguments  which 
should  guide  judgment.  Washington  sent  others 
in  search  of  arguments,  and  used  their  findings  as 
the  basis  for  his  own  decisions.  Lincoln  went  with 

exhaustive  monograph  entitled,  "Social  Compacts  and  Constitu 
tional  Construction,"  in  the  American  Historical  Review,  vol.  iv.t 
PP.  367"390. 


224         Washington  and  Lincoln 

those  about  him  in  search  of  arguments  and  often 
found  other  arguments  upon  which  to  base  a  deci 
sion.  In  the  critical  moments  of  his  administra 
tion,  when  some  pronouncement  was  to  be  given 
forth,  the  reasoning  it  contained  always  passed 
through  the  alembic  of  his  own  mind.  He  was 
a  profound  thinker  on  the  science  of  government. 
""""Xnother  difference  to  be  noted  is  in  Lincoln's 
use  of  men  for  the  ends  of  government.  In  a 
democracy,  government  is  a  pyramid,  with  the 
mass  of  men  at  the  base,  and  the  leaders  of  men 
at  the  apex.  Lincoln's  marvellous  skill  was  as 
apparent  at  the  apex  as  at  the  base_.  /His  superior 
ity  over  Washington  in  this  respect  was  not  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  first  leader  failed  and  he  suc 
ceeded,  but  to  the  fact  that  he  so  signally  suc 
ceeded.  He  ranks  with  Jefferson  and  Jackson  in 
his  discernment  and  appreciation  of  the  shifting 
and  diverse  currents  of  public  opinion,  and  easily 
surpasses  them  in  his  handling  of  strong  men  for 
the  purposes  of  government. 

He  was  nominated  by  a  convention  which  some 
thought  had  been  swept  off  its  feet,  and  elected  by  a 
popular  vote,  almost  a  million  less  than  a  majority. 
In  the  judgment  of  many  thoughtful  men,  the 
wheels  of  political  machinery  had  slipped  a  cog  in 
elevating  him  to  the  presidency.  When  he  entered 


The  Relation  225 

the  White  House,  distrust  of  his  ability  and  right 
to  lead  was  widespread.  But  with  tact,  patience, 
and  firmness,  he  gained  such  control  that,  in  a 
noble  sense,  he  was  able  to  utilise  a  Chase,  Seward, 
and  Stanton.  The  record  of  his  relation  with 
these  men  is  more  interesting  and  revealing  than 
most  records  of  great  men  with  all  men.  So  com 
plete  was  his  mastery  of  the  situation  that,  when 
his  work  ended,  to  many  others  than  Walt  Whit 
man  he  was  "My  captain,  oh  my  captain!" 

The  contrast  between  the  great  leaders,  in  the 
control  of  men,  especially  of  the  leaders  among 
men,  cannot  be  pushed  too  far.  For  it  must  be 
remembered  that  conditions  under  which  the  first 
President  came  into  leadership  were  not  such  as  to 
give  an  equal  opportunity.  National  life  was  an 
experiment.  The  ship  of  state  was  given  the  official 
test  fresh  from  the  stays,  and  the  test  was  made  on 
the  ebb-tide  of  loyalty  to  the  nation.  Reaction 
had  set  in  from  the  high  patriotism  of  the  early 
Revolutionary  days.  The  officers,  whom  Washing 
ton  chose  as  his  subordinates,  formed  a  motley 
group,  for  he  tried  the  unique  experiment  of 
selecting  a  non-partisan  Cabinet,  and,  doing  this, 
sacrificed  efficiency  for  patriotism.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  two  men  ever  came  together  in 
the  affairs  of  government  who  were  a  more  com- 
15 


226         Washington  and  Lincoln 

plete  antithesis  than  Jefferson  and  Hamilton. 
They  were  indeed  the  square  peg  and  the  round 
hole. 

With  Lincoln,  conditions  were  different.  He 
had  two  generations  of  public  life  to  draw  upon, 
and,  during  those  years,  ideals  of  public  service 
had  been  created.  He  also  came  to  his  task  amid 
the  stress  and  strain  of  a  terrible  war,  one  effect  of 
which  was  to  quicken  the  sense  of  loyalty  and 
unite  all  patriotic  elements  in  the  support  of 
government.  There  were  discordant  elements  for 
him  to  pacify,  guide,  and  utilise,  yet  he  did  not 
have  two  such  masterful  and  mutually  antagon 
istic  personalities  as  the  domineering,  yet  brilliant, 
Federalist,  and  the  radical,  yet  adroit,  Democrat. 
But  after  making  the  most  generous  allowance 
for  the  change  in  conditions,  it  still  remains  true 
that  the  later  leader  displayed  superior  skill  in 
weighing  the  elements  of  human  nature  and  dis 
entangling  the  cross  purposes  of  men. 

Again,  Lincoln  was  a  master  in  the  use  of  lang 
uage  for  the  expression  of  thoughts  on  govern 
ment.  In  a  representative  government  language 
assumes  a  supreme  significance.  The  leader  who 
is  skilful  in  his  use  of  language  works  back  to  the 
headwaters  of  the  stream,  for  in  influencing  the 
people  he  reaches  the  source  of  power.  Sometimes 


The  Relation  227 

the  language  is  spoken,  but  more  often  it  is  written. 
In  either  use  of  language,  Lincoln  was  superior  to 
Washington.  There  is  a  famous  description  given 
by  Senator  Maclay,  of  the  first  President  making 
his  inaugural  address.  He  says:  "This  great  man 
was  agitated  and  embarrassed  more  than  he  was 
by  levelling  cannon  or  pointed  musket.  He 
trembled,  and  several  times  could  scarce  make  out 
to  read,  though  it  must  be  supposed  he  read  it 
often  before."1  On  the  other  hand,  Lincoln  was 
a  master  of  popular  assemblies.  He  came  into 
national  prominence  because  of  the  debates  with 
Douglas.  He  won  the  confidence  of  many  leaders 
in  the  East  as  the  result  of  the  Cooper  Union 
speech.  He  touched  the  heart  and  reached  the 
mind  of  the  loyal  portions  of  the  North,  through 
his  series  of  addresses  on  his  way  to  the  capitol  in 
1861.  There  is  a  remarkable  bit  of  description  by 
one  who  saw  him  in  the  celebrated  debate  on  the 
prairie.  He  says:  "Abraham  Lincoln  .  .  .  rose 
from  his  seat,  stretched  his  long  bony  limbs 
upward,  as  if  to  get  them  into  working  order,  and 
stood  like  some  solitary  pine  on  a  lonely  summit, 
very  tall,  very  dark,  very  gaunt,  and  very  rugged, 
his  swarthy  features  stamped  with  a  sad  serenity, 
and  the  instant  he  began  to  speak  the  ungainly 

1  Writings  of  Washington,  Ford  Ed.,  vol.  xi.,  p.  383,  note. 


228         Washington  and  Lincoln 

mouth  lost  its  heaviness,  the  half-listless  eyes 
attained  a  wondrous  power,  and  the  people  stood 
bewildered  and  breathless  under  the  natural  magic 
of  the  strangest,  most  original  personality  known 
to  the  English-speaking  world  since  Robert  Burns. 
There  were  moments  when  he  seemed  all  legs  and 
feet,  and  again  he  appeared  all  head  and  neck ;  yet 
every  look  of  the  deep-set  eyes,  every  movement 
of  the  prominent  jaw,  every  wave  of  the  hard 
gripping  hand,  produced  an  impression,  and  before 
he  had  spoken  twenty  minutes  the  conviction  took 
possession  of  thousands  that  here  was  the  pro 
phetic  man  of  the  present  and  the  political  saviour 
of  the  future."1 


The  same  superiority  is  revealed  by  Lincoln 
when  writing  as  when  speaking  on  questions  of 
government.  The  best  of  the  writings  which  have 
come  down  with  the  name  of  the  first  President, 
such  as  the  War  Correspondence  and  the  Farewell 
Address,  are  supposed  to  have  been,  in  literary 
expression,  the  work  of  Hamilton. 2  The  fact  that 
Washington  turned  to  the  ablest  writer  of  his  day 

1  Grierson's,  The  Valley  of  Shadows,  p.  198. 

8  As  regards  the  War  Correspondence  there  has  never  been  any 
doubt.  Hamilton's  work  in  the  Farewell  Address  has  been 
doubted:  Oliver,  p.  351,  asserts  that  he  was  its  author.  Allan 
McLane  Hamilton,  the  distinguished  grandson,  discusses  at 
some  length  the  question,  and  seems  to  establish  the  authorship. 
See  his  Intimate  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  pp.  84-89. 


The  Relation  229 

for  help  shows  that,  while  he  recognised  his  own 
limitations,  he  also  appreciated  the  importance  of 
language  in  his  work  of  leadership. 

Not  so  with  Lincoln.  When  the  time  came  for 
him  to  lead  in  the  work  of  maintaining  the  Union, 
he  had  no  equal  among  his  contemporaries  in  the 
use  of  language  as  a  medium  for  touching  and 
forming  public  opinion.  \  A  careful  study  of  his 
letters  and  documents  justifies  the  assertion  that, 
in  the  use  of  language  for  great  ends,  he  stands 
without  a  rival  among  the  statesmen  of  the  world. 

An  analysis  of  these  writings  reveals  four  charac 
teristics  of  importance.  First,  there  is  an  utter 
absence  of  literary  dilettanteism.  Quaint,  homely, 
and  original,  the  language  often  is,  but  never  is  it 
affected.  Frequently  he  wrote,  with  the  thought 
of  creating  an  impression  by  what  he  wrote;  but 
not  a  sentence  is  found,  formed  by  the  pen,  as  a 
cherry  stone  is  whittled  into  shape  by  the  pen 
knife.  The  pressure  upon  him  was  too  great,  and 
his  mind  too  serious  for  such  trifling. 

Second,  his  mind  is  never  subordinate  to  his 
style.  This  is  a  severe  test  to  apply  to  the  writings 
of  one  whose  style  is  matchless.  The  writers  of 
the  first  rank  who  can  stand  it  are  easily  counted. 
Carlyle  has  written  pages  as  brilliant  as  any  known 
to  modern  literature;  Macaulay  has  chapters 


230         Washington  and  Lincoln 

among  the  most  fascinating  in  history.  But  com 
pare  a  page  or  chapter  of  one  of  these  writers  with 
the  lines'm  one  of  Lincoln's  great  documents,  and 
the  distinct  impression  is  made  upon  the  mind  that 
the  writers  across  the  sea  are  more  skilful  in 
language  than  robust  in  thought,  while,  with  the 
great  American,  the  tough  fibre  of  his  mind  is  felt 
in  every  line  he  writes.  The  words  he  uses  are 
to  his  thoughts  as  the  polish  is  to  the  grains  of  the 
wood.  And  as  the  grains  show  more  clearly  as 
the  wood  takes  the  polish,  so  his  thoughts  on 
government  stand  forth  with  more  strength  as  they 
find  superb  expression  in  words.  His  language  is 
never  in  excess  of  his  thinking. 

Third,  through  his  style  there  is  the  constant 
play  of  imagination.  Public  opinion  in  a  republic 
is  reached  not  alone,  or  even  primarily,  through 
the  reason,  but  through  the  imagination.  Lincoln 
understood  this,  and  as  a  result  his  great  writings 
are  enriched  by  this  element.  There  is  nothing 
light  or  fanciful  in  his  play  upon  the  imagination. 
His  finest  passages  do  not  suggest  the  lights  and 
shadows  upon  the  meadows,  but  rather  the  sun  in 
the  western  sky  flooding  the  rugged  mountain 
side,  for  underneath  the  glow  of  imagination  lies 
the  solid  reasoning. 

Fourth,  his  language  is  exact,  never  making 


The  Relation  231 

him  say  more  or  less  than  he  intends.  There  is  no 
over-refining  in  words,  no  excess  of  qualifying 
propositions,  no  tendency  to  reach  his  destination 
by  a  circuitous  verbal  route.  As  another  has 
aptly  phrased  it:  "He  is  one  of  the  few  of  whom  it 
may  be  said,  as  Dante  said  of  himself, '  I  have  often 
made  words  say  things  that  they  did  not  wish  to 
say;  but  words  have  never  made  me  say  things 
that  I  did  not  wish  to  say. ' " r 

This  matchless  skill  in  the  use  of  language  was 
a  growth  and  the  result  of  painstaking  effort. 
While  this  growth,  of  course,  began  in  childhood 
as  he  wrote  with  charcoal  upon  a  wooden  shovel, 
it  also  may  be  traced  during  the  four  tumultuous 
years  of  his  leadership.  A  comparison  of  the  two 
inaugural  addresses,  as  they  came  from  his  hand, 
will  show  this.  The  earlier  one  is  liberally  blue- 
pencilled.  The  later  one  is  free  from  the  disturbing 
marks  of  the  pencil.  Nowhere  in  great  literature 
is  there  a  more  perfect  illustration  of  Quintilian's 
dictum,  that  "the  way  to  write  well  is  not  to 
write  quickly,  but  if  you  take  the  trouble  to  write 
well,  in  time  you  can  write  as  quickly  as  you 
like. "  In  the  first  inaugural  he  struggles  slowly, 
and,  when  through  with  the  struggle,  submits  his 
product  to  the  schoolmaster  of  Springfield,  who 

1  Bliss  Perry,  Address  before  Brooklyn  Institute,  1911. 


23*         Washington  and  Lincoln 

discovers  a  "pesky  split-infinitive.  "'  Three  years 
later  he  journeys  to  the  battlefield,  and  on  the  way 
writes  the  Gettysburg  Address,  the  words  of  which 
are  like  pebbles  of  the  brook,  washed  round  and 
smooth  by  the  flow  of  waters.  He  has  taken  time 
to  write  well  and  at  last  is  able  to  write  supremely 
well  with  little  time. 

Having  noted  the  negative  aspect  of  the  relation, 
that  is,  the  absence  in  one  of  certain  qualities  of 
leadership  found  in  the  other,  let  us  now  consider 
the  positive  aspect  of  the  relation,  that  is,  the 
possession  by  both  of  certain  other  qualities  or 
traits  that  pertain  to  leadership  of  a  high  order. 

First  among  these  traits  is  that  of  insistence 
upon  the  concrete.  The  objective  world  was  the 
tremendous  reality  for  them  both.  Realism  was 
the  atmosphere  in  which  they  dwelt.  The  French 
scholar  Renan  is  reported  to  have  said  to  his  sister 
Henrietta:  "Ah,  I  thank  God  that  he  has  placed 
my  happiness  in  thinking  and  feeling."2  These 
leaders  were  men  of  deep  emotions  and  lofty 
thoughts,  but  they  would  never  have  made  such 

1  The  first  inaugural  was  submitted  to  others,  notably  W.  H. 
Seward.  The  changes  he  suggested  and  which  were  adopted  are 
noted  in  Nicolay  and  Hay,  A  History,  vol.  iii.,  chap.  xxi.  The 
document  was  also  submitted  to  S.  A.  Douglas,  although  Nicolay 
and  Hay  make  no  mention  of  this.  See  Allen  Johnson's  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  pp.  463,  464. 

3  North  American  Review,  April,  1907. 


The  Relation  233 

a  remark.  For  them  life's  satisfaction  was  found, 
not  in  the  thought  or  feeling,  but  in  projecting 
these  into  the  sphere  of  action.  With  each  the 
will  was  central  in  life. 

And  this  insistence  gives  a  clue  to  the  secret  of 
their  unchallenged  influence.  They  were  not  orig 
inal  thinkers,  for  neither  offered  any  contribution 
to  the  theory  of  government.  James  Wilson  was 
a  more  original  thinker  than  Washington,  and  the 
distinctive  ideas  that  took  shape  in  the  era  of 
Lincoln  may  be  traced  to  others.  *  And  they  were 
not  the  creators  of  the  movements  of  their  respect 
ive  eras.  The  Constitutional  movement  of  1787 
was  greater  than  Washington  and  the  Civil  War 
movement  than  Lincoln.  At  the  grave  of  Rous 
seau  it  was  repeated  that  he  said  of  the  philo 
sophers  :  ' '  They  have  produced  light ;  I  will  produce 
a  movement.'*  These  great  leaders  neither  pro 
duced  the  light  nor  the  movement.  And  yet  they 
were  the  commanding  personalities  in  their  era. 

The  explanation  for  this  is  in  the  fact  that  they 
were  tremendous  in  action.  Without  a  Washing- 

1  J.  Q.  Adams,  in  a  speech  in  Congress  in  1842  said,  "When  a 
country  is  invaded,  and  two  hostile  armies  are  set  in  martial 
array,  the  commanders  of  both  armies  have  power  to  emancipate 
all  the  slaves  in  the  invaded  territory.  "  Cong'l  Globe,  27th  Cong, 
ist  sess.,  part  I,  p.  429.  Here  is  Lincoln's  idea  of  the  slave  as  a 
war  asset. 


234         Washington  and  Lincoln 

ton,  the  work  of  Pelatiah  Webster,  Hamilton, 
Madison,  and  Wilson  would  have  failed.  After 
John  Quincy  Adams,  Webster,  and  Clay  had 
struggled  in  vain,  Lincoln  came  to  the  front,  and 
amid  conditions  he  did  not  create,  he  succeeded. 
These  great  leaders  caught  the  light  that  emanated 
from  the  minds  of  original  thinkers,  and  mastered 
movements  fraught  with  untold  weal  or  woe,  only 
to  carry  them  forward  to  successful  terminations. 
Their  task  was  to  make  real  in  the  affairs  of 
government  the  thoughts  of  men.  In  this  practi 
cal  sense,  Washington  made  actual  the  formation 
of  the  Union.  In  a  no  less  practical  sense,  Lincoln 
made  effective  the  maintenance  of  the  Union. 
In  leadership  there  is  a  strength  of  action  which 
transcends  originality  of  thinking.  When  the 
crisis  is  on,  the  supreme  need  is  for  men  who  can 
project  thought  into  deed,  and  make  concrete 
ideas  that  are  big.  These  leaders  were  transcend 
ent  in  their  greatness  because  they  acted. 

- 

Action  in  leadership  to  be  effective  is  ac 
companied  by  another  trait,  that  of  prudence. 
And  this  trait  both  Washington  and  Lincoln  pos 
sessed  in  a  marked  degree.  For  in  making  con 
crete  the  thoughts  on  government  which  won  their 
assent,  they  were  controlled  by  this  spirit.  It  is 
not  easy  to  define  prudence  in  a  man  of  big  parts. 


The  Relation  235 

It  is  something  more  than  caution  and  never  the 
opposite  of  daring.  It  is  finer  than  timidity  and 
often  an  expression  of  courage.  It  as  certainly 
belongs  to  statesmanship  of  the  first  rank  as 
weight  to  substance.  Edmund  Burke  says  it  is 
the  finest  trait  of  statesmanship.  An  analysis  of 
prudence  at  its  best  indicates  the  presence  of 
common  sense.  Robert  Walpole  was  fond  of  say 
ing  that  "a  great  prime  minister  was  one  who  had 
more  common  sense  than  anyone  else."1  Tenny 
son,  in  measuring  the  substantial  character  of 
Wellington  over  against  the  dartling  genius  of 
Napoleon,  has  a  fine  line  descriptive  of  his  country 
man,  to  the  effect  that  he  was  "rich  in  saving 
common  sense/'2 

But  among  the  component  parts  of  prudence  is 
a  sense  of  responsibility.  Perhaps  prudence  may 
be  described  as  common  sense  ladened  with  re 
sponsibility.  Because  of  this  the  statesman  moves 
slowly.  The  crisis  for  him  is  the  moment  when 
the  huge  ship  of  state  is  moving  with  reduced 
speed  and  under  perfect  control  through  the  wind 
ing  channel.  Smaller  boats  move  more  speedily 
and  make  the  dock  with  less  difficulty.  But  they 
carry  less  cargo  and  draw  only  a  little  water. 

1  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  iSth  Century,  vol.  v.,  p.  260. 

2  Tennyson's  "Ode  on  the  Death  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington." 


236         Washington  and  Lincoln 

So  with  these  great  leaders.  Their  prudence 
which  led  them  to  move  slowly  was  an  expression 
of  reserve  strength.  The  safety  of  the  mighty 
ship  of  state  was  at  stake.  One  leader  commanded 
the  craft  fresh  from  the  stays  as  it  slid  into  the 
water;  the  other,  as  it  felt  its  way  through  the 
tortuous  channel  with  ugly  rocks  near  by.  Each 
was  called  into  command  when  prudence  was 
required.  For  this  they  were  severely  criticised. 
Some  mistook  their  slowness  for  hesitation.  Others, 
in  the  grip  of  single  ideas  for  immediately  reform 
ing  the  world,  marvelled  that  progress  was  not 
more  rapid.  But  later,  these  critics  were  forced  to 
admit  that  they  were  mistaken.  The  refusal  to 
give  the  bells  for  more  speed  was  then  understood 
to  be  the  result  of  a  deeper  insight  into  conditions, 
and  a  more  complete  mastery  of  forces.  They 
were  strong  enough  to  resist  hasty  action  and 
brave  enough  to  take  needful  action. 

Lincoln  gave  a  fine  statement  of  this  when, 
speaking  to  Governor  Morgan  at  a  critical  moment, 
he  said:  "We  are  like  whalers  who  have  been  on  a 
long  chase:  we  have  at  last  got  the  harpoon  into 
the  monster  but  we  must  look  how  we  steer,  or  with 
one  flop  of  his  tail  he  will  send  us  all  into  eternity. " T 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay,  A  History,  vol.  x.,  p.  74.  Paine  in  The 
Crisis,  referring  to  Howe's  troops  in  New  Jersey,  during  the 


The  Relation  237 

But  if  prudence  is  the  spirit  which  slows  down 
the  action  because  of  the  dangers  involved,  expedi 
ency  is  the  quality  of  mind  which  guides  the 
action  amid  the  dangers.  And  this  was  another 
trait  seen  in  the  leadership  of  Washington  and 
Lincoln.  Expediency  is  as  necessary  as  prudence 
in  order  that  action  in  the  supreme  crisis  may  be 
effective.  For  the  one  who  is  controlled  by  prud 
ence  without  being  guided  by  expediency  illus 
trates  the  old  saying  that  "he  who  hesitates  is 
lost. "  And  the  one  who  is  guided  by  expediency 
without  being  controlled  by  prudence  illustrates 
an  equally  old  saying  that  "fools  rush  in  where 
angels  fear  to  tread."  The  pages  of  history  are 
sprinkled  with  the  failures  of  leaders  who  lacked 
one  or  the  other  quality. 

And  by  expediency  is  meant  simply  the  inter 
pretation  of  experience  by  reason.  The  leader 
who  is  guided  by  expediency  acts  in  the  light  of 
the  experience  as  interpreted.  The  huge  ship 
moves  slowly  and  therefore  is  in  action.  Its 

winter  of  1777,  says,  "Like  a  wounded,  disabled  whale,  they 
want  only  room  and  time  to  die  in;  and  though  in  the  agony  of 
their  exit,  it  may  be  unsafe  to  live  within  the  flapping  of  their 
tail,  yet  every  hour  shortens  their  date,  and  lessens  their  power  of 
mischief."  Writings  of  Paine,  Conway  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  198.  Is 
there  here  a  suggestion  that  Lincoln  was  familiar  with  the  writings 
of  Paine?  The  writer  does  not  recall  another  nautical  illustration 
used  by  Lincoln. 


238         Washington  and  Lincoln 

speed  is  carefully  measured,  and  this  is  prudence. 
But  it  moves  slowly,  with  speed  reduced,  because 
the  officer  in  command  knows  the  channel,  depth 
of  water,  danger  of  collision,  power  of  momentum, 
dock  to  be  reached,  and  this  is  expediency.  And 
so  it  was  with  these  great  leaders.  They  pos 
sessed  ideals  of  government,  but  they  were  toned 
on  the  shore  of  the  real. 

Because  of  the  place  which  expediency  occupied 
in  their  working  philosophies  of  life,  there  are  no 
enigmas.  The  prophetic  instinct,  in  the  usual 
meaning  of  the  term,  had  no  place  in  their  public 
work.  No  one  claims  this  quality  for  Washington. 
His  giant  form  moved  too  slowly  through  vast 
stretches.  Things  never  became  vital  for  him 
until  they  took  shape  in  the  immediate  foreground. 
But  this  has  been  claimed  for  Lincoln.  It  is  said 
that  his  was  a  mystical  nature,  and  the  phantom 
ship  of  his  dreams  is  mentioned.  And  further,  his 
famous  words  about  the  "house  divided  against 
itself  " J  are  quoted.  But  these  words  when  placed 
with  his  others  on  slavery  are  seen  to  be  excep 
tional.  They  need  to  be  placed  along  with  such 
words,  for  example,  as  those  spoken  in  the  debate 
with  Douglas,  to  the  effect  that  "he  did  not  suppose 
that  in  the  most  peaceful  way  ultimate  extinction 

1  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  i.,  p.  240. 


The  Relation  239 

[referring  to  slavery]  would  occur  in  less  than  a 
hundred  years  at  least."1 

Lincoln  believed  his  task  was  to  save  the  Union 
and  not  abolish  slavery,  even  as  Washington,  in 
1775,  believed  his  task  was  to  protest  against 
unjust  taxation  without  going  the  length  of 
independence.  But  the  Revolutionary  leader  in 
1776  found  that  the  one  involved  the  other,  and 
the  Civil  War  leader  in  1862  found  that,  to  save 
the  Union,  slavery  must  be  abolished. 

However,  expediency  as  a  guide  is  not  alien  to 
the  exercise  of  prophecy.  In  fact,  used  in  the 
masterful  way  that  Washington  and  Lincoln  used 
it,  expediency  becomes  the  handmaid  of  prophecy 
in  the  larger  sense.  For  then  the  past  is  inter 
preted,  in  the  light  of  the  present,  for  the  welfare 
of  the  future.  They  may  have  lacked  the  strange 
gleam  which  illumines  the  details  ahead,  as  the 
lightning  on  a  dark  night  the  rocks  and  trees  of 
the  valley.  The  claim  cannot  be  made  for  Wash- 

1  Ibid.,  p.  408.  These  words  about  "ultimate  extinction,"  were 
spoken  to  break  the  force  of  his  words  about  "the  divided  house." 
Lincoln's  speech  at  Springfield,  111.,  June  16,  1858,  was  his  one 
most  unfortunate  utterance.  It  contained  the  words  about  "the 
divided  house,"  and  also  the  conspiracy  of  "Stephen,  Franklin, 
Roger,  and  James."  Douglas  at  once  saw  the  opportunity  and 
forced  Lincoln  to  take  a  defensive  attitude  for  some  time.  And 
it  should  be  said  to  the  credit  of  Douglas  that  Lincoln  never 
offered  any  evidence  to  support  his  charge  of  conspiracy. 


240         Washington  and  Lincoln 

ington  as  for  Sam  Adams  that  he  saw  the  end  of 
the  Revolution  from  the  beginning.  It  cannot  be 
claimed  for  Lincoln  that  he  saw  as  far  ahead  on 
slavery  as  did  William  Lloyd  Garrison.  But  if 
they  lacked  this  strange  gleam,  they  certainly 
possessed  the  discernment  which  enabled  them  to 
measure  the  forces  of  to-day  by  the  conditions  of 
yesterday.  And  the  forces  of  to-day  they  saw 
reaching  forth  into  the  possibilities  of  to-morrow. 
This  is  prophecy  in  its  most  robust  form.  They 
are  embodiments  in  history  of  the  poet's  words: 

It  is  not  wholly  so  to  him  who  looks 
In  steadiness;  who  hath  among  least  things 
An  under-sense  of  greatest ;  sees  the  parts 
As  parts,  but  with  a  feeling  of  the  whole. x 

Guided  by  expediency,  the  stages  in  the  develop 
ment  of  each  leader  may  be  traced.  Neither 
could  have  applied  to  his  work  the  words  which 
Napoleon  spoke  to  Gourgaud  at  St.  Helena,  con 
cerning  his  work  in  war,  when  he  said:  "War  is  a 
strange  art.  I  have  fought  sixty  battles,  and  I 
assure  you  that  I  have  learned  nothing  from  all  of 
them  that  I  did  not  know  in  the  first.  Look  at 
Caesar!  he  fights  in  the  first  battle  as  in  the  last.  "2 


1  Wordsworth,  The  Prelude,  Book  vii. 
•  Rosebery,  The  Last  Phase,  p.  210. 


The  Relation  241 

The  American  leaders  learned  by  experience,  be 
cause  guided  by  expediency. 

Curiously,  with  expediency  as  a  guide,  the 
growth  of  each  was  the  reverse  of  the  other.  The 
first  leader,  though  an  American  gentleman  with 
English  traditions  of  law  and  order,  was  in 
the  Revolutionary  days  mildly  radical,  and  in  the 
Constitutional  days,  strongly  conservative.  The 
man  who  commanded  the  army,  and  listened  in 
1776  while  standing  on  the  site  of  the  present  City 
Hall  in  New  York  to  the  reading  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  is  not  the  same  man  in  his  con 
ceptions  of  government  as  the  man  who  presided 
over  the  convention  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
during  the  summer  days  of  1787.  In  the  earlier 
period  the  emphasis  was  upon  freedom,  and  in  the 
later  upon  law. 

The  reverse  was  true  of  Lincoln.  On  the 
slavery  question,  as  regards  its  political  implica 
tions,  he  was  a  conservative  who  became  a  radical. 
The  evidence  for  this  is  in  a  comparison  of  his 
public  utterances  in  1861  with  those  of  1865. 
Standing  in  the  western  portico  of  the  capitol 
building  about  to  take  the  oath,  in  the  earlier 
period,  he  emphasises  what  the  government  should 
not  do  about  slavery  in  the  States.  Standing  in 
the  eastern  portico,  in  the  later  period,  and  about 

16 


242         Washington  and  Lincoln 

to  take  the  oath  for  the  second  time,  he  emphasises 
what  the  government  shall  do  about  slavery. 

Though  each  changed,  the  factors  in  the  pro 
cess  which  wrought  the  change  are  easily  seen. 
This  is  a  fact  of  prime  importance  in  seeking  an 
explanation  of  their  work  in  government.  There 
is  found  in  the  career  of  each  no  break  with  his 
past.  In  this  respect  they  differ  from  many  great 
leaders  in  government.  For  example,  Gladstone 
began  his  work  a  conservative  and  ended  a  liberal. 
Yet  it  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  change  by 
saying,  that  he  was  guided  by  expediency,  and, 
therefore,  in  the  light  of  changing  conditions,  he 
changed.  The  change  in  his  position  was  due  to 
a  mental  revolution.  At  eighty-two  he  said,  "I 
was  brought  up  to  distrust  and  dislike  liberty,  I 
learned  to  believe  in  it.  "x  But  not  so  with  these 
leaders.  Lincoln,  writing  in  1864,  describes  Wash 
ington  as  well  as  himself  when  he  says:  "I  claim 
not  to  have  controlled  events,  but  confess  plainly 
that  events  have  controlled  me.  Now  at  the  end 
of  three  years'  struggle,  the  nation's  condition  is 
not  what  either  party  or  any  man  desired  or 
expected. " 2  And  this  simply  means  that  in  action 
they  were  guided  by  expediency. 

1  Morley,  Life  of  Gladstone,  vol.  iii.,  p.  475. 

*  Works  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay  Ed.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  509. 


The  Relation  243 

Another  trait  of  character  possessed  by  Wash 
ington  and  Lincoln  was  that  of  essential  goodness. 
In  a  study  of  leadership  in  government,  it  may 
seem  a  little  unusual  to  call  attention  to  a  quality 
so  commonplace,  even  though  fundamental,  as 
goodness.  Historians  evidently  think  so,  for  they 
either  assume  this  goodness,  or  give  to  it  only  a 
passing  notice.  However,  the  writer  is  convinced 
that  goodness  explains  in  a  large  measure  the  com 
manding  influence  of  these  leaders.  And  because 
of  this,  the  relation  between  them  cannot  be  traced 
unless  this  quality  is  considered.  Therefore,  a 
more  than  passing  notice  will  be  taken  of  it. x 

Where  the  word  "great"  is  used  of  the  few 
exceptional  leaders  in  government  it  has  either  of 
two  meanings.  It  may  mean  the  possession  of 
some  traits  so  in  excess  of  those  possessed  by  the 
ordinary  man,  as  to  cause  all  men  to  look  with 
fear  or  admiration  upon  the  one  possessing  them. 
Or  it  may  mean  the  possession  of  traits  in  such 
perfect  proportion,  that  the  one  possessing  them, 
because  he  is  normal,  is  great.  The  great  man,  in 

1  "There  is  no  great  share  of  probity  necessary  to  support  a 
monarchical  or  despotic  government.  The  force  of  laws  in  one, 
and  the  prince's  arm  in  the  other,  are  sufficient  to  direct  and 
maintain  the  whole.  But  in  a  popular  state,  one  spring  more  is 
necessary,  namely,  virtue. " — Montesquieu,  The  Spirit  of  Laws, 
Book  iii.,  Section  3. 


244         Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  first  use  of  the  word,  startles  the  world.  In 
the  second  use  of  the  word,  he  wins  the  world. 

The  great  man,  in  the  first  sense,  lacks  propor 
tion.  He  may  insist  upon  the  concrete,  be  con 
trolled  by  prudence,  and  accept  expediency  as  a 
guide,  but  if  he  have  only  these,  he  will  be  as  the 
huge  ship  without  ballast.  The  great  man,  in  the 
second  use  of  the  word,  who  is  normal,  and  there 
fore  supremely  great  because  normal,  adds  to  these 
three  traits  a  fourth,  namely,  goodness.  And  this 
goodness  acts  as  a  steadying  influence,  which  saves 
for  the  world  results  which  otherwise  might  be  lost. 

A  glance  at  leadership  in  history  shows  how  true 
this  is.  The  line  of  cleavage  in  great  leadership 
is  primarily  moral.  It  is  somewhat  disturbing  to 
discover  that  the  question  of  goodness  can  be 
asked  about  some  great  men  only  with  a  smile. 
It  can  be  asked  about  Frederick  the  Great,  Napo 
leon,  Robert  Walpole,  Disraeli,  and  Bismarck,  only 
with  a  smile.  It  can  be  asked  about  Hamilton, 
Jefferson,  Franklin,  Webster,  and  Clay,  only  with  a 
smile.  But  no  one  thinks  of  asking  the  question 
about  Washington  or  Lincoln,  for  such  a  question 
is  almost  an  insult  to  their  memories.  Their  good 
ness  is  so  apparent  and  inevitable  that  the  ques 
tion  becomes  superfluous.  The  fact  is  one  of  the 
silent  yet  potent  assumptions  of  history. 


The  Relation  245 

Granting  that  these  leaders  were  essentially 
good  men,  how  did  this  goodness  reveal  itself  in 
their  work  on  government  ?  Our  answer  is,  it  was 
shown  in  an  elemental  simplicity.  There  is  a 
form  of  simplicity  sometimes  affected  by  leaders 
which  is  only  on  the  surface.  Washington,  who 
happened  to  wear  silver  buckles  on  his  shoes, 
doubtless  was  often  amused  at  the  carpet  slippers 
worn  by  Jefferson.  And  probably  Lincoln  chuck 
led  to  himself,  when  he  found  that  his  great  oppo 
nent  Douglas  had  dropped  the  last  letter  from  his 
name,  in  response  to  the  more  primitive  conditions 
of  society.1  This  was  only  harmless  ostentation 
in  simplified  form. 

And  there  is  a  genuine  simplicity  which  has  to 
do  with  the  incidentals  of  external  life.  In  this 
respect  Washington  was  conventional  and  Lincoln 
was  careless.  The  biographers  think  they  have 
made  quite  a  discovery  if  they  find  some  intimate 
experience  in  which  Washington  forgot  or  Lincoln 
remembered  the  conventions  in  manners  or  speech. 
Of  course  this  contrast  must  not  be  pushed  too  far, 
but  it  exists. 

However,  there  is  a  simplicity  that  is  elemental, 
and  has  to  do  with  the  roots  of  character.  In  this 
sense,  both  these  leaders  were  simple  men.  Some 

1  Allen  Johnson's,  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  p.  22. 


246         Washington  and  Lincoln 

one  has  said  of  F6nelon:  "Half  of  him  would  be  a 
great  man  and  stand  out  more  clearly  as  a  great 
man,  than  does  the  whole,  because  it  would  be 
simpler."1  And  these  words,  so  pregnant  with 
meaning,  explain  the  failure  of  some  great  men  to 
attain  the  rank  of  supreme  greatness.  Sometimes 
this  lack  of  simplicity  is  moral,  again  it  is  mental. 
Alexander  Hamilton  in  sheer  intellectual  strength 
exerted  in  behalf  of  government  is  without  a  peer 
in  our  history.  But  it  is  this  half  of  him  that 
stands  out  more  clearly  as  a  great  man.  From  a 
different  standpoint,  the  career  of  Gladstone  illus 
trates  these  words.  He  was  a  "great  Christian, " 
with  a  wide  horizon,  a  deep  passion  for  righteous 
ness,  and  superb  powers  in  action.  But  it  is 
certain  that  he  will  just  miss  the  rank  of  the 
supremely  great,  because  of  the  absence  at  times 
of  intellectual  simplicity.  Not  so,  however,  with 
the  two  great  American  leaders.  Their  goodness 
is  always  a  perfect  blend  of  mental  and  moral 
simplicity.  They  are  never  infinitely  great  in  one 
relation,  and  infinitesimally  small  in  another. 

Another  answer  is,  there  was  an  absolute  sincer 
ity  in  their  goodness.  This  would  follow  from 
what  has  been  said  about  their  simplicity.  It  was 

1  Quoted  by  Morley  and  applied  to  Gladstone.  See  Morley's 
Life  of  Gladstone,  vol.  i.,  p.  184. 


The  Relation  247 

the  absence  of  intellectual  simplicity  which  gave 
some  excuse  for  the  charge  that  Gladstone  was  not 
sincere  in  the  absolute  sense.  It  was  the  absence 
of  moral  simplicity  in  Hamilton  which  involved 
an  appearance  for  a  time  unlike  the  reality,  which 
justified  the  suspicion  of  his  enemies.  But  not  so 
with  Washington  and  Lincoln.  Being  elemental 
in  their  simplicity  they  are  sincere  in  all  their 
relations. 

In  the  days  when  Rome  was  building  its  marble 
palaces,  as  the  story  goes,  much  trouble  was 
experienced  with  dishonest  contractors  who  used 
defective  marble.  A  block  would  come  from  the 
quarry  chipped.  Knowing  that  it  would  rest  well 
up  in  the  wall,  the  temptation  was  strong  to  hide 
the  defect  and  to  use  instead  of  reject  the  block. 
And  so  white  wax  the  colour  of  the  marble  was 
used  with  such  skill  that  the  owner  of  the  com 
pleted  building,  upon  receiving  it  from  the  con 
tractor,  failed  to  detect  it.  However,  in  time  the 
washing  of  the  rains,  the  beating  of  the  winds,  and 
the  flashing  of  the  sunlight  upon  the  wall  would 
darken  the  wax,  and  cause  the  wall  to  appear 
blotched.  In  order  to  protect  themselves  against 
this  imposition  the  nobles  came  together,  and 
formed  a  sort  of  "gentleman's  agreement,"  by 
which  all  contracts  drawn  for  marble  buildings 


248         Washington  and  Lincoln 

should  in  the  future  contain  the  clause,  sine 
cere — "without  wax;*'  no  fraud  or  imposition,  but 
truth  to  standard.  And  so  with  these  great 
leaders.  The  revelation  of  themselves  in  their 
work  is  as  the  piece  of  marble,  massive  in  size, 
lines  straight,  corners  square,  and  the  surface  true. 

A  further  answer  is,  that  goodness  meant  for 
them  unselfish  devotion.  This  is  but  another  way 
of  saying  that  they  were  patriotic.  For  patriot 
ism  in  its  virile  sense  is  an  expression  of  goodness. 
In  a  country  whose  institutions  are  democratic 
there  is  a  tendency  in  the  direction  of  self -conscious 
ness  which  leads  its  citizens  to  think  more  of  what 
their  country  owes  them  than  what  they  owe  their 
country.  The  citizen  who  is  patriotic  in  the  finer 
sense  reverses  the  order  and  thinks  more  of  what 
he  owes  his  country. 

A  thinker  who  commands  a  wide  reading  has 
said:  "In  brief  the  people  who  have  more  rights 
than  duties  have  gained  a  notable  and  distin 
guished  ethical  position  in  our  modern  world.  The 
selfish  we  had  always  with  us.  But  the  divine 
right  to  be  selfish  was  never  more  ingeniously 
defended  in  the  name  of  the  loftiest  spiritual  dig 
nity  than  it  is  sometimes  defended  and  illustrated 
to-day."1  These  are  disturbing  words,  but  quite 

1  Josiah  Royce,  Loyalty,  p.  68. 


The  Relation  249 

as  applicable  to  the  days  of  Washington  and 
Lincoln,  as  to  the  days  since.  And  the  veneration 
felt  for  these  leaders  is  due  in  no  small  measure 
to  the  fact,  that  each  had  more  duties  than  rights 
in  a  generation  in  which  men  had  more  rights  than 
duties. 

Self-interest  was  made  subordinate  when  Wash 
ington  emerged  from  his  retirement  at  Mt.  Vernon 
to  preside  over  the  convention  in  1787.  He  had 
repaired  his  broken  fortune  and  was  again  in 
affluent  circumstances.  Fame,  as  he  believed,  had 
done  her  utmost  for  him.  There  is  not  wanting 
evidence  that  he  was  fearful  lest  his  fame  might 
suffer,  should  he  assume  leadership  in  civil  affairs. 
But  in  the  States  he  discovered  an  undue  emphasis 
upon  rights,  and  so  laying  aside  personal  interests 
he  came  forward  to  stand  for  duties. 

The  same  emphasis  is  found  in  the  career  of 
Lincoln.  Read  carefully  his  debate  with  Douglas, 
and  the  impression  is  made  that  while  he  may  not 
have  been  superior  to  his  opponent  in  the  adroit 
handling  of  the  points  in  the  argument,  yet  he 
possessed  a  deeper  and  finer  sense  of  moral  duty. 
Compare,  also,  his  leadership  with  that  of  the 
masterful  Southern  leadership.  And  again 
the  impression  is  made,  that  however  sincere  the 
Southern  leaders  were  in  the  arguments  advanced, 


250         Washington  and  Lincoln 

their  goodness  just  missed  its  finest  expression, 
because  of  an  undue  emphasis  upon  rights. 

"Whether  it  be  right"  is  a  nobler  question  for 
the  leader  in  a  democracy,  than  the  other  question, 
"What  are  our  rights?"  The  one  question  does 
not  necessarily  contradict  the  other  question. 
But  only  as  the  leader  passes  from  the  "rights"  to 
the  "right?"  does  he  pass  from  the  realm  of  self 
interest,  into  the  loftier  region  of  pure  patriotism. 
And  Washington  and  Lincoln  did  this. 

Still  another  answer  is  that  goodness  for  them 
was  suffused  with  a  tender  spirit  of  charity.  The 
moral  philosophers  state  that  charity,  or  better 
still,  benevolence,  is  the  basis  of  goodness.  How 
ever,  it  may  be  asked,  what  has  charity  to  do  with 
a  leader's  work  in  government?  There  are  two 
answers:  One  is,  that  through  charity  or  the 
kindly  spirit  the  leader  broadens  his  conception 
of  the  meaning  of  government.  Isaac  Barrow,  the 
prof ound  writer  of  the  ijth  century,  says:  "Char 
ity  rendereth  a  man  truly  great,  enlarging  his 
mind  into  a  vast  circumference,  and  to  a  capacity 
nearly  infinite;  so  that  by  it  a  general  care  doth 
reach  all  things,  by  an  universal  affection  doth 
embrace  and  grace  the  world. "  The  other  answer 
is,  that  through  charity,  the  leader  establishes 
himself  in  the  confidences  of  the  people.  Jeremy 


The  Relation  251 

Bentham,  the  utilitarian  philosopher,  in  no  danger 
of  undue  sentimentalism,  says:  "If  you  would 
gain  mankind,  the  best  way  is  to  appear  to  love 
them,  and  the  best  way  of  appearing  to  love  them, 
is  to  love  them  in  reality.'*  Washington  and 
Lincoln  may  never  have  heard  the  words  of 
Barrow  or  Bentham,  but  they  practised  them. 
And  the  student  cannot  go  far  in  the  study  of 
their  lives  without  feeling  the  glow  of  their  kindly 
feeling  for  man.  He  may  not  feel  it  as  readily  in 
the  life  of  the  earlier  leader,  for  he  is  farther 
removed  and  by  nature  was  more  reserved.  But 
behind  the  somewhat  haughty  exterior  beat  a 
heart,  big  with  love  for  man.  Lincoln  expressed 
this  component  part  in  the  element  of  goodness 
when  he  said  in  the  tender  and  beautiful  words 
spoken  as  the  storm  died  away:  "With  malice 
toward  none;  with  charity  for  all;  with  firmness  in 
the  right,  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us 
strive  on  to  finish  the  work  we  are  in ;  to  bind  up 
the  nation's  wounds;  to  care  for  him  who  shall 
have  borne  the  battle,  and  for  his  widow,  and  his 
orphan — to  do  all  which  may  achieve  and  cherish 
a  just  and  lasting  peace  among  ourselves,  and  with 
all  nations."  And  the  same  spirit  of  charity  is 
found  in  Washington's  Farewell  Address,  although 
the  language  is  more  conventional  and  less  felici- 


252         Washington  and  Lincoln 

tous.  "Father  of  his  country,"  and  "Father 
Abraham"  are  terms  that  mean  something. 

One  more  answer  is  that  goodness  as  revealed 
in  the  work  of  these  great  leaders  in  government 
meant  a  deep  faith  in  God.  If  the  roots  of  their 
goodness  were  simplicity,  sincerity,  unselfishness, 
and  charity,  the  soil  in  which  these  roots  grew,  was 
a  deep  faith  in  God.  Reserve  in  the  expression  of 
his  confidence  of  divine  assistance  becomes  the 
leader  of  the  nation,  in  the  hour  of  its  struggle. 
For  then,  the  nation  easily  permits  its  conception 
of  providence  to  degenerate  into  an  unreasonable 
fatalism.  Napoleon,  watching  the  play  of  ele 
mental  forces  in  the  thunder-storm  on  the  eve  of 
Waterloo  exclaimed,  "We  are  in  accord!"  These 
words  were  really  an  expression  of  egotism  gone 
to  seed.  Victor  Hugo  in  his  famous  description 
says,  that  "it  had  seemed  to  him  that  destiny,  for 
which  he  had  made  an  appointment  for  a  certain 
day  upon  the  field  of  Waterloo,  was  punctual."1 
However,  destiny  failed  to  keep  the  appointment. 
The  faith  of  the  Americans  was  far  removed  from 
such  folly. 

But,  if  they  never  were  the  victims  of  a  con 
suming  egotism  neither  did  they  reduce  life  to  a 
mere  rule  of  conduct.  Jefferson's  scrap-book  con- 

* Victor  Hugo,  Les  Miserable*,  Part  II.,  Book  i.,  Chap.  7. 


The  Relation  253 

taining  his  "precious  morsel  of  ethics,"1  made  by 
bringing  together  only  the  statements  of  Jesus  in 
the  Four  Gospels  that  bear  on  conduct,  would  have 
had  little  interest  for  either  Washington  or  Lin 
coln.  Goodness  for  them  was  more  than  precepts 
for  correct  living.  It  is  evident  that  in  their 
thought  morality  was  to  religion  as  the  bones  are 
to  a  living  body.  The  bones  of  morality  they  had 
— well  formed,  closely  knit,  and  sound.  For  there 
are  no  two  great  leaders  of  history  whose  lives,  as 
regards  personal  and  public  conduct,  more  suc 
cessfully  invite  searching  criticism.  But  in  the 
supreme  crisis  of  his  life,  as  each  faced  the  "exigen 
cies  of  the  Union,"  he  passed  from  morality  to 
religion.  He  probed  beneath  the  surface  of  con 
duct  and  found  faith.  It  will  never  be  known  to 
what  extent  the  earlier  leader,  who  went  to  the 
House  of  Prayer,  or  the  later  leader,  who  "read 
the  story  of  Gethsemane  on  his  knees"2  was 
actually  given  strength.  Neither  will  it  ever  be 
known  how  far  reaching  was  the  influence  of  this 
genuine  faith  in  God  as  it  was  witnessed  by  the 

1  Thomas  Jefferson,  The  Life  and  Morals  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
p.  16. 

2Tarbell,  Life  of  Lincoln,  vol.  i.,  p.  406.  "I  have  read  upon 
my  knees  the  story  of  Gethsemane,  where  the  Son  of  God  prayed 
in  vain  that  the  cup  of  bitterness  might  pass  from  Him.  I  am  in 
the  garden  of  Gethsemane  now,  and  my  cup  of  bitterness  is  full 
and  overflowing." 


254         Washington  and  Lincoln 

people.  Certainly  the  student  lacks  imagination, 
who  can  turn  the  pages  of  their  recorded  acts  and 
thoughts,  without  finding  this  element  of  faith, 
which  for  the  sake  of  historic  accuracy  cannot  be 
ignored. 

The  word  goodness  then,  as  a  quality  inherent 
in  the  leadership  of  these  great  men,  meant  sim 
plicity,  sincerity,  unselfishness,  charity,  and  faith. 
It  is  as  impossible  to  think  of  their  work  apart 
from  goodness  as  thus  defined,  as  to  think  of 
colour  without  atmosphere.  And  more  than  this, 
after  ample  allowance  has  been  made  for  their 
other  qualities,  the  one  that  dominates,  or  rather 
shines  through  them,  as  sunlight  through  the  trees 
of  a  forest,  is  this  commonplace  quality  of  essential 
goodness. 

And  now  having  noted  the  qualities,  which  give 
to  the  leadership  of  each  a  four-square  efficiency, 
there  remains  one  more  quality,  that  for  the 
purpose  of  this  study  is  fundamental,  namely,  the 
possession  by  each  of  an  imperial  ideal.  And  this 
ideal  was  also  an  expression  of  goodness.  This 
does  not  mean  that  those  who  lacked  this  imperial 
vision,  and  saw  the  parts  rather  than  the  whole, 
were  not  good.  But  it  does  mean  that  this  ideal 
so  mastered  the  thinking  of  these  leaders,  that  it 
became  a  distinct  manifestation  of  their  moral 


The  Relation  255 

natures.  It  was  for  the  other,  even  as  for  the 
one,  "the  ever  favourite  object  of  my  heart." 
And  in  this  lies  the  real  secret  of  the  relation 
between  them.  For  had  they  lacked  this  imperial 
ideal,  even  though  they  possessed  the  other  quali 
ties,  the  relation  could  not  be  established. 

It  is  not  known  when  or  how  this  imperial  ideal 
of  government  came  to  them.  Napoleon  tells  us 
that  one  day  on  which  in  reading  Bossuet's  Dis 
course  on  Universal  History,  he  read  of  Caesar, 
Alexander,  and  the  succession  of  empires,  the  veil 
of  the  temple  was  rent  and  he  beheld  the  move 
ment  of  the  gods.  And  from  that  time  on,  in  his 
campaigns  in  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Germany,  the 
vision  never  left  him.1  Neither  Washington  nor 
Lincoln  has  left  any  records  of  the  conditions  under 
which  this  splendid  ideal  of  government  came  to 
them.  Probably  neither  was  ever  conscious  of 
the  rending  of  a  veil  or  the  movement  of  gods. 
Their  lives  were  too  normal  to  afford  much  place 
for 

The  flashes  struck  from  midnights; 
The  fire  flames  noon  days  kindle. 2 

Perhaps  the  only  answer  is,  that  being  cast  in  the 
imperial  moulds  of  such  minds,  the  imperial  ideal 

1  Rosebery,  Napoleon,  The  Last  Phase,  p.  176. 
3  Browning,  Cristina. 


256         Washington  and  Lincoln 

simply  filled  the  minds.  For  nature  can  never  be 
counted  out  in  explaining  great  men.  But  it  is 
known  that  the  earlier  leader  was  under  the  spell 
of  the  splendid  vision  when  it  was  needed  for  the 
creation  of  the  Union,  and  the  later  leader  when  it 
was  needed  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union. 
The  one  emerged  from  a  war  to  form,  and  the 
other  entered  a  war  to  preserve  the  Union.  And 
neither  was  ever  disloyal  to  his  vision. 

The  imagination  kindles  as  one  is  seen  presiding 
over  a  convention  that  writes  the  Constitution  for 
a  composite  empire.  The  great  man  says  little, 
perhaps  he  has  little  to  say.  But  in  his  very 
personality  he  is  the  embodiment  of  something 
imperial.  Nothing  small  could  be  done  by  a 
group  which  he  dominated.  And  the  same  is  true 
of  the  other  leader.  The  reader,  as  he  turns  the 
pages  of  their  recorded  thoughts,  feels  the  uplift 
of  the  imperial,  as  a  traveller,  drawing  near  the 
ocean,  catches  the  flavour  of  salt  air. 

But  what  was  the  imperial  ideal  which  they 
saw?  It  certainly  was  something  more  than  land 
and  people.  Other  leaders  in  their  eras  saw  these 
things  and  missed  the  imperial  ideal.  It  was  the 
form  of  government  which  they  saw  over  the 
people  dwelling  on  the  land.  They  saw  a  govern 
ment  with  power  lodged  at  the  centre,  distinct 


The  Relation  257 

from  and  in  addition  to  power  in  the  parts;  this 
power  was  expressed  in  law,  derived  from  the 
people,  who  only  could  give  sanction  to  the  law, 
because  alone  the  source  of  the  power. 

Beyond  this  it  is  not  possible  to  go  in  establishing 
the  relation.  For  while  they  were  alike  in  their 
vision  of  imperial  form,  they  differed  somewhat  in 
their  ideas  of  the  content  of  power. 

And  the  explanation  of  this,  as  has  been  sug 
gested  in  the  preceding  chapters,  is  not  difficult  to 
find.  The  one  was  an  aristocrat  and  the  other  a 
democrat.  This  familiar  contrast  may  be  pushed 
too  far,  although  it  is  impossible  to  ignore  it,  in  a 
study  of  the  work  of  these  leaders  in  government. 
How  far  training  is  an  influence  which  determines 
the  attitude  of  a  man  in  relation  to  the  affairs  of 
government,  so  that  he  becomes  an  aristocrat  or  a 
democrat,  cannot  be  known.  This  attitude  is 
certainly  the  result  of  something  more  than  exter 
nal  circumstances.  Washington  was  not  an  aristo 
crat  because  he  owned  a  plantation  and  kept 
slaves.  Jefferson  had  these  things  and  was  a 
democrat.  Lincoln  was  not  a  democrat  because 
he  buried  his  axe  in  a  tree  or  wore  a  linen  duster. 
Roger  Sherman  was  a  shoemaker  and  became  an 
aristocrat  in  government.  There  was  something 
in  the  temper  of  the  mind  of  each,  which  led  the 

17 


258         Washington  and  Lincoln 

one  to  become  an  aristocrat  and  the  other  a 
democrat. 

They  both  subscribed  to  the  political  creed,  that 
power  as  expressed  in  law  is  derived  from  the 
people.  Yet  the  words  did  not  mean  exactly  the 
same  to  each.  Washington  saw  the  people  in  the 
law ;  Lincoln  saw  the  law  in  the  people.  The  first 
leader  believed  in  the  divine  right  of  government 
as  derived  from  the  people.  The  second  leader 
believed  in  the  divine  right  of  the  people  expressed 
in  government.  The  earlier  leader  never  said,  as 
did  the  later,  that  he  owed  all  his  political  ideas 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

But  in  addition  to  the  temper  of  mind  as  an 
explanation  of  the  difference  in  their  understanding 
of  power,  there  is  a  further  and  more  important 
explanation,  namely  the  fact  of  historic  develop 
ment.  Lincoln  was  farther  down  the  stream  of 
the  nation's  life,  and  so  the  distance  between  the 
banks  was  greater,  and  the  channel  deeper.  Power 
in  government  was  as  actual  for  the  one  as  the 
other,  but  in  1861  there  was  more  of  it. 

The  expression  of  power  of  necessity  meant 
more  for  the  later  leader.  Power  finds  its  expres 
sion  in  law,  and  the  symbol  of  the  law  in  the 
imperial  sense  is  in  the  Federal  Court.  In  1787, 
such  a  court  was  an  innovation,  and  needed  time 


The  Relation  259 

in  order  to  win  its  way.  The  first  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  resigned  because,  as  he 
wrote  John  Adams  on  January  2,  1801,  "It 
would  not  obtain  the  energy,  weight,  and 
dignity,  which  was  essential  to  its  affording  due 
support  to  the  national  government."1  But  fol 
lowing  Jay,  who  seems  momentarily  to  have  lost 
hope,  came  Marshall  whose  mighty  work  reaching 
through  thirty -four  years  consisted  in  establishing 
the  supremacy  of  Federal  law  within  the  entire 
circle  of  its  jurisdiction.  The  after-glow  of  Mar 
shall,  along  with  Story  and  Taney,  was  a  positive 
asset  at  the  disposal  of  Lincoln. 

The  source  of  power  had  a  deeper  meaning 
for  the  later  leader.  The  recognition  of  power  as 
derived  from  the  people  carries  with  it  the  right 
of  the  people  to  control  the  power.  But  it  required 
the  Democratic  movement  under  the  leadership  of 
Jefferson,  and  later  of  Jackson,  to  make  this  clear. 
And  along  with  this,  although  enunciated  by 
thinkers  having  none  too  much  confidence  in  the 
people,  was  the  political  truth  of  the  indivisibility 
of  power.  Gleams  of  this  truth  emanated  from 
the  mind  of  James  Wilson  in  1787.  But  the  pre 
vailing  view,  and  doubtless  the  one  Washington 
accepted,  was  that  the  power  was  divisible  bet  ween 

1  Pellew,  Life  of  Jay,  p.  339. 


26o         Washington  and  Lincoln 

the  Union  formed  by  the  States,  and  the  States 
forming  the  Union. 

Finally  as  to  the  abuse  of  power  under  govern 
ment.  The  later  leader  appeared  under  con 
ditions  which  made  imperative  another  answer. 
The  earlier  leader  disbelieved  in  slavery  and 
tolerated  it.  The  later  leader  began  by  tolerating 
it,  and  ended  by  leading  the  movement  for  its 
abolition.  The  water  in  the  stream  of  the  nation's 
life  had,  by  1861 ,  gained  such  volume  and  headway 
that  the  awful  obstruction  in  the  channel  was 
swept  away. 

As  the  study  closes,  it  is  in  order  to  inquire 
whether  by  the  method  adopted  and  tinder  the 
conditions  laid  down  in  the  introductory  chap 
ter,  the  relation  between  Washington  and  Lincoln 
has  been  explained.  The  method  adopted  called 
for  an  examination  of  work  rather  than  a  descrip 
tion  of  workmen.  The  conditions  laid  down  were 
three :  The  work  selected  for  examination  should  be 
commensurate  with  the  greatness  of  the  workmen, 
that  thus  there  might  be  given  a  revelation  of  their 
ample  resources.  The  work  examined  as  done  by 
each  should  be  sufficiently  alike  to  make  possible 
a  comparison.  And  the  law  of  historic  develop 
ment  should  be  recognised. 

In  following  the  method,  five  periods  of  work  in 


The  Relation  261 

government  have  been  examined.  Viewed  as  a 
whole,  this  work  may  be  said  to  consist  of  building 
the  arch  of  empire.  In  the  period  of  1 763,  through 
experiment,  the  ground  was  cleared.  In  the  period 
of  1776  the  excavations  were  made  and  the  piers 
laid.  In  1787,  upon  these  piers  the  voussoirs 
forming  the  span  were  placed.  In  1830,  the  vous 
soirs  were  pointed  up.  In  1861,  the  arch  as  a 
whole  was  buttressed.  When  the  arch  was  built, 
Washington  was  the  leader.  Later,  when  the 
arch  was  reinforced,  Lincoln  was  the  leader. 
Surely  the  work  examined  was  commensurate 
with  the  greatness  of  the  workmen. 

And  certainly  the  work  was  sufficiently  alike  to 
make  possible  a  comparison.  For  in  addition  to 
the  fact  that  each  was  concerned  with  the  arch, 
both  had  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  the  keystone 
of  power  placed  in  the  arch.  And  further,  the 
likeness  is  emphasised  by  the  fact  that  in  dealing 
with  the  keystone  these  workmen  had  to  answer 
the  same  questions  as  to  its  composition. 

The  time  element  has  been  reckoned  with. 
For  while  each  has  worked  upon  the  keystone  in 
the  arch,  yet  the  nature  of  the  work  has  differed, 
owing  to  the  change  in  conditions.  It  was  Wash 
ington's  task  to  reject  the  British  and  hoist  the 
American  stone  into  place.  It  was  Lincoln's  task 


262         Washington  and  Lincoln 

to  hold  in  place  the  stone  as  hoisted  in  1787,  and 
measured  in  1830.  Here  is  historic  development. 

It  may  be  said  then,  that  an  examination  of 
work  in  government,  under  the  conditions  laid 
down,  shows  that  the  relation  between  Washington 
and  Lincoln  is  accentuated  by  similarity,  and  mod 
ified  by  difference.  The  similarity  is  seen  in  the 
fact  that  each  had  to  do  with  the  arch  and  the 
keystone.  The  difference  in  the  fact,  that  one 
laid  the  arch  including  the  keystone,  and  the 
other  strengthened  the  arch  and  held  the  keystone 
in  place. 

But  how  was  the  work  done  by  each?  The 
examination  made  has  not  only  disclosed  the 
nature  of  the  work,  but  revealed  the  skill  of  the 
workmen.  And  as  the  skill  of  each  is  compared 
with  the  other,  it  is  seen  that  the  relation  between 
them  is  further  accentuated  or  modified  through 
similarity  and  difference.  The  relation  is  modi 
fied  by  the  fact  that  Lincoln  was  superior  to 
Washington  in  certain  respects.  He  had  a  stronger 
mental  grip  on  the  philosophy  of  government. 
He  excelled  in  the  use  of  language  for  the  expres 
sion  of  his  thoughts  on  government.  He  handled 
men  more  adroitly  for  the  ends  of  government. 
The  relation  is  accentuated  by  the  possession  in 
common  of  certain  fundamental  traits,  inherent  in 


The  Relation  263 

supremely  great  leadership.  They  were  men  of 
action  who  insisted  upon  the  concrete.  Govern 
ment  for  them  was  not  in  books  but  in  organised 
society.  The  spirit  of  prudence  controlled  them 
in  making  concrete  their  thoughts.  In  thus  mak 
ing  concrete  under  the  control  of  prudence,  they 
were  guided  by  expediency.  And  to  these  three 
qualities  was  added  a  fourth,  namely,  the  steadying 
influence  of  an  essential  goodness.  Possessing 
these  qualities  in  such  splendid  proportion  they 
were  lured  on  by  the  magnificent  ideal  of  an 
imperial  Union  to  which  they  were  ever  loyal. 
Therefore,  Washington  and  Lincoln  are  related  in 
government  as  they  work  on  the  arch  of  empire — 
the  one  building,  the  other  maintaining — the  one 
placing  the  keystone  of  power  in  the  arch,  the 
other  struggling  to  keep  it  there.  And  on  this 
keystone  an  inscription,  subscribed  to  by  both: 
"A  more  perfect  Union,  existing  for  the  people, 
because  having  power  expressed  through  law,  and 
coming  from  the  people.'1 


Index 


Abolitionism,  appeal  to  con 
science,  1 66;  use  of  petitions, 
1 68  ff.;  political  organisa 
tion,  177;  influence  in  the 
South,  1 86;  at  second  inau 
guration,  213 

Adams,  John,  member  of  Re 
volutionary  group, 44;  Brain- 
tree  letters,  45,  87,  note; 
writings  compared  with 
Washington's,  78;  absent  in 
1787,  86;  change  in  views  of 
government,  117;  uneasy  at 
inauguration,  129;  appoints 
Marshall,  149 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  member 
of  National  group,  132;  his 
career,  167  ff.;  contest  in 
Congress,  168,  178;  quotes 
James  Wilson,  171;  related 
to  Lincoln,  197,  234;  slave 
as  war  asset,  233,  note 

Adams,  Samuel,  member  of 
Revolutionary  group,  44; 
appearance  at  Continental 
Congress,  49;  Washington 
uneasy  about  him,  78;  absent 
in  1787,  87;  lingers  in  re 
gion  of  freedom,  92 ;  accepts 
Constitution,  114;  his  head 
quarters,  164;  relation  to 
Lincoln,  196;  a  prophet, 
240 

Albany,  the  conference  of,  19 
ff. 

American  Insurance  vs.  Can 


ters,  150 
Ames,    Fisher,    description   of 


Washington,  131,  note 


265 


Ames,  Herman  V.,  documents, 
148,  note 

Annapolis,  meeting  at,  84,  90 

Appomattox,  210 

Arkansas,  207 

Arkwright,  Richard,  140 

Articles  of  Association,  196 

Articles  of  Confederation,  first 
constitution,  96;  contribu 
tion  to  government,  97; 
national  domain,  97;  absence 
of  power,  103;  compared 
with  Constitution,  113;  origi 
nal  draft  and  slavery,  122 
ff. 


B 


Bacon,  Francis,  4 

Barrows,  Isaac,  251 

Bates,  Edward,  Inaugural 
group,  175 

Bell,  John,  vote  in  1860,  189 

Bell,  Senator,  remark  to  Web 
ster,  153 

Benjamin,  J.  P.,  Southern 
leader,  188 

Bentham,  Jeremy,  251 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  Inaugural 
group,  132 

Bismarck,  244 

Blackstone,  theory  of  divine 
right,  39;  read  in  colonies, 
69 ;  exposition  of  Great  Char 
ter,  70 

Blair,  Montgomery,  inaugural 
group,  175 

Bolingbroke,  68 

Boone,  Daniel,  134 

Border  States,  Inaugural 
group,  175;  attitude  on 


266 


Index 


Border  States — Continued 
slavery,  187;  Lincoln's  recog 
nition     of     them,     205     ff.; 
soldiers  in  the  Northern  army 
206 

Boston,  repressive  measures, 
36;  little  army  about,  47; 
Washington's  interest,  65, 
85;  Washington  visits  it  as 
President,  107;  abolitionism, 
164 

Boucher,  Jonathan,  conversa 
tion  with  Washington,  15 

Braintree  letters,  45,  87,  note 

Breckinridge,  John  C.,  Inau 
gural  group,  173;  vote  in 
1860,  189 

British  Empire,  its  constitu 
tion,  7,  94;  conditions 
which  created  the  empire,  8, 
I5ff. ;  fact  of  empire  recog 
nised  in  colonies,  12;  colonial 
policies,  17  ff.;  constitutional 
struggle,  24 ff.;  contest  with 
colonies  an  incident,  41 

Browning,  Robert,  255 

Bryce,  James,  state  constitu 
tions,  101,  note 

Burke,  Edmund,  member  of 
Parliamentary  group,  27; 
expression  of  power,  35; 
description  of  colonies,  35; 
conciliation,  36  ff.;  resolu 
tion  on  reform,  68  ff.;  refers 
to  Blackstone,  70;  on  pru 
dence,  235 


Calhoun,  John  C.,  member  of 
National  group,  133;  expres 
sion  of  power,  158  ff.;  his 
Exposition  and  Hayne,  159; 
Virginia  Resolutions,  160; 
responds  to  toast,  161,  note; 
debates  with  Webster,  169, 
178,  187;  frames  argument 
for  secession,  190,  193 

Calvin,  John,  political  freedom, 

7i 

Camden,    Lord,    member     of 


Parliamentary  group,  26; 
taxation  and  representation, 
32  ff.;  expression  of  power, 
35 ;  language  compared  with 
Washington's,  81 

Carlyle,  Thomas,  description 
of  Webster,  156,  note;  Fred 
erick  the  Great  and  Lincoln, 
178;  style  compared  with 
Lincoln's,  229 

Carroll,  Charles,  railway  to  the 
West,  139 

Carteret,  John,  68 

Cart wright,  Edmund,  140 

Charleston,  Jackson's  sugges 
tion,  161 ;  attack  on  Sumter, 
198 

Charlestown,  37 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  Inaugural 
group,  176;  administers  oath 
to  Lincoln,  213;  member  of 
Lincoln's  Cabinet,  225 

Chesterfield,  Earl  of,  68 

Civil  War  era,  compared  with 
other  eras,  9,  177,  180,  184, 
!96,  197,  219,  261;  historic 
tableaux,  173  ff.;  change  in 
atmosphere,  177;  definition 
gives  way  to  action,  178  ff., 
187  ff.,  193;  territorial  expan 
sion,  182;  slavery  a  sectional 
influence,  185;  centrifugal 
and  centripetal  tendencies, 
187  ff.;  election  of  1861,  189; 
Confederacy  formed,  189; 
arguments  of  the  sections, 
190  ff. ;  national  domain,  193 ; 
fact  of  revolution  and  the 
Constitution,  199  ff.;  abuse 
of  power,  215;  summary  of 
era,  218;  the  aftermath,  219; 
arch  of  empire  buttressed, 
262 

Clay,  Henry,  member  of  Na 
tional  group,  132;  expression 
of  power,  158  ff. ;  compromise 
of  1833,  162;  failure  of 
compromise,  178;  compro 
mise  of  1850,  181,  184;  rela 
tion  to  Lincoln,  234;  ques 
tion  of  goodness,  244 


Index 


267 


Clive,  Robert,  conquering  in 
India,  16 

Cohens  vs.  Virginia,  116,  157, 
1 88 

Cold  Harbour,  210 

Colonies,  their  credentials,  12 
ff.;  military  defence,  19  ff.; 
contributions  to  home  gov 
ernment,  22;  influence  of 
Treaty  of  Paris,  22  ff.,  effect 
of  Stamp  Act,  24,  35 ;  repres 
sive  measures,  36;  armed 
resistance,  37 ;  Turgot's  com 
ment,  41;  formal  separation, 
42;  legislatures  co-ordinate 
in  power,  51;  against  legis 
lation  without  representa 
tion,  52;  defective  in  art  of 
compromise,  52;  related  to 
empire  through  Crown,  56; 
conditions  in  the  colonies, 

59  ff. 

Confederacy,  the,  its  leaders 
188,  198;  its  formation,  189; 
its  argument,  190;  Lincoln's 
back-fire,  208 

Congress,  formation  of  Sen 
ate,  108,  115,  119;  R.  H. 
Lee's  criticism  of  lower 
House,  119;  Washington's 
views  about  lower  House, 
120;  assembling  of  Congress 
in  1789,  128  ff.;  selection  of 
President,  143;  struggle  with 
the  States,  148,  159;  Tariff 
Acts,  159  ff.,  162;  rights  of 
petition,  168  ff.:  war  power 
and  Constitution,  201  ff.; 
right  to  emancipate  the 
slaves,  203;  Lincoln  sus 
tained,  204;  reconstruction, 
207;  passes  XIHth  Amend 
ment,  213;  a  proposed 
amendment,  215,  note 

Connecticut,  protest  against 
Federal  authority,  148 

Constitution,  the,  the  room  in 
which  written,  7;  tributes  of 
De  Tocqueville  and  Glad 
stone,  94;  Articles  of  Confed 
eration,  96;  national  domain, 


97;  State  constitutions  98 
ff.;  omission  of  Bill  of 
Rights,  100;  lodgment  of 
power,  106;  central  clause, 
107;  compromise,  107; 
slavery,  108,  121  ff.,  203, 216; 
physical  force,  1 1 1 ;  the  pre 
amble,  112  ff.,  143,  171,  176; 
interpreted  by  the  Feder 
alist,  116;  a  conservative 
document,  118;  compared 
with  State  constitutions,  118 
ff.;  commerce  clause,  138; 
its  Amendments,  144,  146, 
208,  213,  215,  note;  centrip 
etal  tendency  and  its  adop 
tion,  145;  reserved,  or  im 
plied  powers,  146  if.;  final 
interpretation,  147  ff.,  155 
ff.;  remark  of  Gouverneur 
Morris,  151 ;  right  of  petition 
170;  Lincoln's  use  in  writing 
first  inaugural,  181;  impe 
rial  control,  187;  no  provision 
for  revolution,  199;  calling 
out  militia,  201;  suspension 
of  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus, 
202;  republican  form  of 
government,  207 

Constitutional  era,  compared 
with  other  eras,  9,  115,  121, 
I3°»  X33»  I8o»  2I9,  26i;  un 
rest  in  the  States,  85  ff.;  the 
leaders,  86  ff.;  successful 
termination  of  the  war,  95; 
experiments  in  government 
before  1787,  95  ff.;  central 
problem,  102  ff.;  answers 
given  to  the  problem  103 
ff.;  property  end  of  govern 
ment,  115,  169;  product  of 
the  era,  130  ff.,  219;  fran 
chise  and  land,  143;  centri 
petal  tendency,  145;  arch 
of  empire  built,  261 

Constitutions,  State,  idea  of 
written,  borrowed,  98;  Bill 
of  Rights  borrowed,  98  ff.; 
differed  from  English,  99; 
aspects  that  interested 
Washington,  100  ff.;  dis- 


268 


Index 


Constitution — Continued 
tinctive  feature  of  Revolu 
tionary  era,  101 

Cook,  James,  exploration  and 
empire,  16 

Cumberland  Road,  137 


Dante,  use  of  words,  231 

Dartmouth  Case,  150 

Davis,  Jefferson,  Southern 
leader,  188 

Declaration  of  Independence, 
where  written,  7;  entry  in 
Journal,  42;  formal  state 
ment  of  separation,  42; 
mood  of  those  signing,  42  ff . ; 
Franklin  not  asked  to  write 
it,  43;  signatures  at  end  of 
document,  44  ff. ;  framed 
with  bayonets,  48;  dominant 
note,  50,  56;  not  a  formal 
statement  of  political  philo 
sophy,  50;  criticises  King,  50; 
co-ordinate  powers  of  colo 
nial  legislatures,  52;  sugges 
tion  of  compromise,  53 ;  right 
to  use  force,  55;  George  the 
Third,  the  abuse  of  power, 
55  ff.;  colonies  related  to 
empire  through  the  Crown, 
56;  summary,  56;  culmina 
ting  effect  of  causes,  57;  an 
assertion  in  favour  of  con 
federation,  65;  written  under 
instructions  from  the  people, 
74;  and  the  Constitution, 
113;  Washington  ordered  it 
read,  241 ;  Lincoln's  in 
debtedness,  196, 258 

Declaratory  Act,  meaning  of 
its  introduction,  25;  referred 
to  by  Pownall,  35;  a  com 
promise,  36;  assertion  of 
power,  51 

Delaware,  206 

De  Tocqueville,  tribute  to 
Constitution,  94;  national 
domain,  98,  note;  estimate 
of  leaders,  133,  note 


Dickinson,  John,  did  not  sign 
Declaration,  46;  a  conserva 
tive  in  convention,  120; 
prepared  draft  of  Articles 
of  Confederation,  122 

Disraeli,  Benjamin,  question 
of  goodness,  244 

District  of  Columbus,  169 

Dixon,  Senator,  listening  to 
Webster,  154 

Donald,  Alexander,  letter  to 
Jefferson,  120 

Douglass,  Frederick,  question 
asked  by  Garrison,  165 

Douglas,  S.  A.,  at  inauguration 
of  Lincoln,  173;  vote  as 
Presidential  candidate,  189; 
debate  with  Lincoln,  227; 
reads  inaugural  address,  232, 
note;  charge  of  conspiracy, 
239,  note;  simplicity,  245 

Dred  Scott  Decision,  174,  184 

Dulany,  Daniel,  his  argument 
used  by  Pitt,  34,  163;  op 
posed  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  77 


E 


East  Florida,  135 

Emancipation  Proclamation, 
Lincoln  writes  it,  3,  217; 
denied  Congress  authority 
to  issue,  203  ff.;  six  steps 
leading  up  to,  208  ff. 

Emerson,  R.  W.,  quotes  Mon 
taigne,  9 

Erie  Canal,  137 

Europe,  origin  of  its  nations, 
7;  conception  of  power,  39; 
commerce  in  the  States,  104; 

Everett,  Edward,  oration  at 
Gettysburg,  195 


Federalist,  The,  physical  force, 
112;  its  autnors,  116; 
praised  by  Marshall,  116; 
overvalued  as  history,  116; 
compared  with  Madison's 


Index 


269 


Federalist,  The — Continued 
Journal,  117;  a  republican 
form  of  government  and 
territory,  136,  139;  final 
authority  in  government, 
147;  strong  influence  for 
adoption  of  Constitution, 

163 

Fe"nelon,  moral  and  mental 
simplicity,  246 

Fiske,  John,  slavery  and  gov 
ernment,  220 

Foote,  Senator,  154,  note 

Force  Bill,  162 

Fox,  Charles  James,  68 

France,  Treaty  of  Paris,  16,  23; 
its  revolution  compared  with 
American,  69;  its  Declara 
tion  of  Rights,  71;  its  philo 
sophers  and  written  constitu 
tion,  98 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  why  hedid 
not  write  the  Declaration, 
43,  note;  signs  the  Declara 
tion,  45;  contrasted  with 
Ned  Rutledge,  49;  story  of 
the  hatter,  53  ff . ;  moral  life, 
68,  244;  writings  compared 
with  Washington's,  78 ;  mem 
ber  of  Constitutional  con 
vention,  86;  his  experience, 
89;  illustration  of  the  table, 
109;  on  slavery,  122;  com 
ment  on  the  painting,  212, 
note 

Frederick  the  Great,  indirect 
ally  of  England,  16;  tribute 
to  Pitt,  25;  Carlyle's  de 
scription,  178;  question  of 
goodness,  244 

Fremont,  General,  206 

Friedenwald,  48,  note 


Gage,  General,  quoted  by 
Burke,  70;  letter  from  Wash 
ington,  80 

Galloway,  Joseph,  opposed 
Declaration  of  Independence, 
77 


Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  the 
abuse  of  power,  163;  con 
ditions  under  which  he  did 
his  work,  164;  relation  to 
the  leaders,  165,  218;  his 
appeal  to  conscience,  166; 
his  printing  press  in  1861, 
176;  forced  the  issue,  186; 
historic  justification,  218, 
note;  prophet  of  slavery, 
240 

Geneva,    compact   theory,  70 

George  the  Third,  abuse  of 
power,  37,  51,  55  ff.;  testi 
mony  of  English  historians, 
38;  shaped  policy  of  govern 
ment,  38;  represented  in 
Parliament,  40;  facetious 
remark,  43;  mentioned  in 
Declaration,  51;  remark  of 
Washington,  62;  retrograde 
movement,  74  ff . ;  denounced 
as  cause  of  slavery,  122 

Georgia,  slavery,  122 

Georgia  vs.  Chisholm,  148 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  120 

Gettysburg  Address,  195  ff., 
232 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  tribute  to 
Constitution,  94;  mental  rev 
olution,  242;  mental  sim 
plicity,  246  ff. 

Goodnow,  F.  J.,  commerce 
clause  in  Constitution,  138, 
note 

Grant,  Gen.  U.  S.,  210 

Great  Charter,  asserts  right  to 
rebel,  55 ;  Blackstone's  expo 
sition,  69;  Bill  of  Rights,  99 

Greeley,  Horace,  criticises  Lin 
coln,  206 

Green,  J.  R.,  67 

Greenville,  George,  member  of 
Parliamentary  group,  26;  on 
taxation,  30;  expression  of 
power,  34;  served  under 
Tory  king,  75 

Guadaloupe  involved  in 
Treaty  of  Paris,  23 

Guizot,  the  theory  of  govern 
ment,  27 


270 


Index 


H 


Habeas  Corpus,  writ  of,  con 
troversy  over,  202  ff. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  member 
of  Constitutional  Conven 
tion,  88;  suggests  need  of 
convention,  89;  compared 
with  Washington,  89;  writes 
Washington,  91;  prepares 
draft  of  constitution,  92; 
definition  of  power,  93; 
physical  force,  112;  joint 
author  of  Federalist,  116;  a 
conservative,  120;  argument 
for  representative  govern 
ment,  136;  at  Poughkeepsie, 
145;  final  interpretation  of 
Constitution,  147;  adroit 
leader,  188;  musty  parch 
ments,  195;  compared  with 
Lincoln,  196;  argument  on 
the  bank,  223;  opposed  to 
Jefferson,  22  5;  assisted  Wash 
ington,  228;  needed  Wash 
ington,  234;  question  of 
goodness  244,  246  ff. 

Hamilton,  Allan  McLane,  228, 
note 

Hancock,  John,  facetious 
remark,  43;  receives  Wash 
ington  in  Boston,  107 

Hargreaves,  James,  his  inven 
tion,  146 

Harrington,  James,  political 
ideas,  69 

Hartford  Convention,  protest 
against  Federal  authority, 
148 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.,  member  of 
National  group,  132;  debate 
with  Webster,  154  ff.,  178; 
interprets  Jefferson,  155, 
157;  differs  from  Madison, 
157;  uses  material  in  Expo 
sition,  159;  studied  by  Lin 
coln,  181 

Henry,  Patrick,  reason  for 
not  signing  Declaration,  46; 
tribute  to  Washington,  46; 
an  American,  64;  absent 


from  convention  of  1787,  86; 
lingers  in  region  of  freedom, 
92  jopposesConstitution,  1 14; 
views  on  slavery,  127,  167; 
in  relation  to  Lincoln,  196 
Holt,  Joseph,  Inaugural  group, 

175 

Hooker,  Thomas,  influence 
upon  political  institutions, 

74  . 

Hopkinson,  Francis,  signs 
Declaration,  44;  and  Samuel 
Adams,  49 

Hugo,  Victor,  comment  on 
Napoleon,  252 

Hume,  David,  the  Court  and 
America,  38 

Hunter,  General,  206 

Hutchinson,  Thomas,  the  col 
onies  and  distance,  6 1 


Irish  House  of  Lords,  its  juris 
diction,  28 

Irving,  Washington,  influence 
of  Washington  in  Conti 
nental  Congress,  48,  note 


J 


Jackson,  Andrew,  member  of 
National  group,  132;  expres 
sion  of  power,  159  ff.;  toast 
on  Jefferson's  birthday,  161; 
issues  proclamation,  161, 
178,  181;  ready  to  send 
Federal  army  into  South 
Carolina,  161;  his  simile  of 
bag  of  meal,  161 ;  a  reminder, 
175;  public  opinion,  224; 
democracy,  259 

James  River  Colony,  story  of 
Powhatan,  62;  cargo  of  corn, 
64 

Jay.  John,  did  not  sign  Declara 
tion,  45  ;  joint  author  of  Feder 
alist,  1 1 6;  resigns  as  Chief 
of  Justice  of  Supreme  Court, 
259 


Index 


271 


Jefferson,  Thomas,  refers  to 
Franklin,  43;  signs  Declara 
tion,  45;  first  draft  of  Decla 
ration  amended,  53;  moral 
life,  68,  244;  writings  com 
pared  with  Washington's  78; 
absent  from  convention  in 
1787,  86;  his  theories  of 
government  in  1787,  114, 
note;  original  draft  of  Decla 
ration  and  slavery,  122;  op 
poses  Marshall,  150;  quoted 
by  Hayne,  155;  oath  of 
office  administered  by  Mar 
shall,  175,  note;  fears  about 
Missouri  Compromise,  183; 
adroit  leader,  188;  argument 
on  bank,  223;  public  opinion, 
224;  opposed  to  Hamilton, 
226;  simplicity,  245;  his 
scrap-book,  252;  a  democrat, 
257,  259 

Jellinek,  Georg,  origin  of  Bill 
of  Rights,  71;  political  in 
stitutions,  72 ;  distinction 
between  English  and  Ameri 
can  conceptions  of  freedom, 
100 

Johnson,  Samuel,  consecrated 
lies,  48,  note 


Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  184 

Kentucky,  205  ff. 

Kentucky  Resolutions,  pro 
test  against  Federal  author 
ity,  148;  used  by  Hayne,  155, 
157;  interpreted  by  Calhoun, 
1 60;  argument  in  1861,  188 

King,  Rufus,  member  of  con 
vention  in  1787,  87;  com 
pared  with  Washington,  89; 
in  convention  of  Massachu 
setts,  147;  compared  with 
Lincoln,  196 

Knox,  Gen.  Henry,  writes 
Washington  about  conven 
tion,  91 


Lafayette,  Gen.,  mentioned  by 
Jellinek,  71;  letter  from 
Washington,  129 

Lamar,  Justice,  strength  of 
Northern  argument,  192 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  estimate  of 
George  the  Third,  38;  politi 
cal  life  of  England,  67 

Lee,  Gen.  Charles,  letter  to 
Washington,  48,  note;  com 
ment  on  Paine,  164 

Lee,  Gen.  Robert  E.,  210 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  criticises 
the  Constitution,  119 

Lewis  and  Clark,  152 

Lexington,  37 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  relation  to 
Washington  assumed,  I ;  ap 
pearance,  2  ff.,  213  ff.;  a 
democrat,  3,  257;  emanci 
pation  of  the  slaves,  3,  203; 
how  explain  the  relation,  4ff . ; 
a  lawyer,  5 ;  a  storekeeper,  5 ; 
influence  of  historic  develop 
ment,  6,  226,  258  ff.;  unlike 
Washington,  6,  196,  219, 
222,  224,  227  ff.,  241,  257  ff., 
261  ff.;  commanding  per 
sonality  of  his  era,  10,  193, 
220;  oath  of  office,  173,  193, 
200,  205;  central  figure  in 
tableaux,  173  ff.;  views  on 
slavery,  174,  216  ff.,  238; 
first  inaugural,  177,  180  ff., 
196,  198;  Carlyle's  words, 
178;  task  one  of  action, 
178  ff.;  letter  to  Wash- 
burne,  179;  influenced  by 
the  past,  1 80  ff.;  in  pres 
ence  of  Washington's  por 
trait,  194;  his  political 
text-book,  194;  the  old  toast, 
195;  on  the  field  of  Gettys 
burg,  195  ff.;  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  196, 
258;  adroit  leadership,  198; 
use  of  war  power,  199  ff. ; 
calling  out  militia,  201 ;  sus 
pension  of  writ  of  Habeas 


272 


Index 


Lincoln,  Abraham — Continued 
Corpus,  202;  relation  to 
Congress,  203  ff.;  spirit  of 
compromise,  204  ff.;  the 
Border  States,  205  ff.;  use 
of  physical  force,  208 ;  slaves 
as  a  military  asset,  208  ff.; 
his  generals,  210;  despatch 
to  Grant,  210  ff.;  his  gentle 
ness,  21 1 ;  second  inaugural, 
212  ff.,  251;  change  in 
thought,  214  ff.,  241,  260; 
abuse  of  power,  215;  work 
finished,  218;  virile  thinker, 
222  ff. ;  handling  of  men, 
224  ff.;  Walt  Whitman's 
words,  225;  use  of  language, 
226  ff. ;  debates  with  Doug 
las,  227,  238,  249;  Grierson's 
description,  227;  analysis  of 
his  style,  229  ff.;  Dante's 
words,  231;  Quintilian's  dic 
tum,  231;  insistence  upon 
the  concrete,  232  ff.;  Renan's 
remark,  232;  like  Washing 
ton,  232  ff.,  234  ff.,  237  ff., 
243  ff.,  254,  261  ff.;  made  no 
contribution  to  theory  of 
government,  233 ;  Rous 
seau's  remark,  233;  con 
trolled  by  prudence,  234  ff.; 
simile  of  whalers,  236;  fami 
liar  with  writings  of  Paine, 
236,  note;  guided  by  ex 
pediency,  237  ff.;  not  a 
prophet,  238;  unfortunate 
speech,  239,  note;  Words 
worth's  lines,  240;  Na 
poleon's  words  not  applic 
able,  240;  becomes  more 
radical,  241;  unlike  Glad 
stone,  242;  his  words  on 
expediency,  242 ;  steadied  by 
goodness,  243  ff.;  simplicity, 
245  ff.;  sincerity,  246  ff; un 
selfish  devotion,  248  ff ;  char 
ity,  250  ff.;  faith  in  God,  252 
ff.;  imperial  ideal,  254  ff.; 
reinforcing  the  arch  of  em 
pire,  261  ff. 

Locke,  John,  political  ideas,  69 


ff.;   protests   against   repre 
sentation,  76 

London,  City  of,  31,  33,  68,  76 
Louisiana,  135,  183,  207 
Lowell,  James  Russell, criticises 
Lincoln,  206 

M 

MacKenzie,  Robert,  writes  to 
Washington,  78 

McClellan,  General,  210 

McCulloch  vs.  Maryland,  150, 
1 88 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.,  covenant 
idea  in  government,  70,  note; 
speculative  aspect  of  gov 
ernment,  222,  note 

Macaulay,  T.  B.,  style  com 
pared  with  Lincoln's,  229 

Madison,  James,  member  of 
convention  of  1787,  88;  tak 
ing  notes  in  convention,  88, 
note;  compared  with  Wash 
ington,  89;  prepared  draft 
of  constitution,  92 ;  aggregate 
sovereignty,  104;  joint  au 
thor  of  Federalist,  116;  legis 
lative  power,  119;  views  on 
slavery,  126,  167;  argument 
for  representative  govern 
ment,  136;  filtration  in  gov 
ernment,  143;  in  State  con 
vention  of  Virginia,  147; 
divisibility  of  power,  157; 
denies  Calhoun's  interpre 
tation  of  Virginia  Resolu 
tions,  1 60;  Washington  com 
pletes  his  work,  234 

Mansfield,  Lord,  member  of 
Parliamentary  group,  26;  on 
taxation,  30  ff.;  on  virtual 
representation,  33,  76;  ex 
pression  of  power,  34;  mis 
taken  idea  of  colonists,  61 

Marburg  vs.  Madison,  149 

Marshall,  John,  his  career,  149; 
his  authority  questioned, 
151;  his  argument  used  by 
Webster,  157;  his  decisions, 
178,  187;  his  interpretation 


Index 


273 


Marshall,  John — Continued 
and    new    conditions,    200; 
jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  259 

Massachusetts,  wording  of  cre 
dentials,  15;  charter  re 
modelled,  36;  facetious 
remark  of  delegate,  43 ;  town 
meetings,  iqi ;  convention  to 
ratify  Constitution,  114, 146; 
protest  against  Federal  au 
thority,  148;  Webster's  eu 
logy.  156 

Martin  vs.  Hunters  Lessee,  149 

Maryland,  commissioners  at 
Mt.  Vernon,  83;  responsible 
for  national  domain,  97; 
overstocked  with  slaves,  125; 
in  the  Civil  War,  205  ff. 

Merriam,  C.  Edward,  117, 
note 

Missouri,  205  ff. 

Missouri  Compromise,  theory 
at  time  of  adoption,  142, 1 68, 
216;  Jefferson's  fears,  183; 
repealed,  184 

Molyneux,  William,  political 
ideas,  69 

Monroe,  James,  report  on  trip 
to  the  West,  6;  letter  to 
Jefferson,  92 

Montaigne  quoted  by  Emer 
son,  9 

Montesquieu,  his  definition, 
1 06;  a  Republic  and  area, 
136 

Morris,  Gouverneur,  member 
of  convention  of  1787,  87;  a 
conservative,  120;  opposed  to 
slavery,  124;  prophecy  re 
garding  West,  133;  his  re 
mark  about  the  Constitution 
151 

Morris,  Robert,  member  of 
convention  of  1787,  87;  need 
of  power,  105 

Mt.  Vernon,  13,  83,  84,  90,  149 


N 


Napoleon,  tribute  to  Paine,  57, 
note;   compared  with  Wel- 

Et 


lington,  235;  words  spoken 
to  Gourgaud,  240;  question 
of  goodness,  244;  at  Water- 
lop,  252 ;  reading  Bossuet,  255 

National  era,  compared  with 
other  eras,  9,  133,  136,  152, 
172,  177,  180,  219,  261;  its 
leaders,  132  ff.;  no  great 
document,  134;  territorial 
expansion,  135  ff.;  steam  as 
motive  power,  137  ff.;  in 
ventions  and  slavery,  139  ff.; 
growth  of  democracy,  142  ff. ; 
centrifugal  and  centripetal 
tendencies,  145  ff.;  question 
of  final  interpretation,  147 
ff.;  problem  of  power,  152; 
answers  given  in  trying  to 
solve  problem,  153  ff.;  end 
of  government,  169;  era  of 
definition,  172,  219;  fails  to 
meet  the  situation,  178; 
influence  on  Civil  War  era, 
179;  stones  in  arch  of  empire 
pointed  up,  261 

Navigation  Act,  no 

Newcastle,  Duke  of,  67,  68 

New  England  Confederation, 
and  unity,  64 

New  Mexico,  184 

New  Orleans,  216 

New  York,  City  of,  British 
squadron,  47;  inauguration 
of  Washington,  128 

North,  Lord,  member  of  group 
of  1765,  26;  repeal  of  Town- 
shend  Acts,  36 


Ogden  vs.  Gibbon,  138 
Oliver,  Frederick  Scott,  8,  228, 

note 

Ordinance  of  1787,  97 
Oregon,  183 
Osborn  vs.  Bank,  148 


Paine,  Thomas,  his  biogra 
phers,  57,  note;  popularity 
of  Common  Sense,  57;  Sam 


274 


Index 


Paine,  Thomas — Continued 
Adams  tribute,  58;  Washing 
ton  impressed,  58,  79,  120; 
the  pamphlet  an  expression 
of  thoughts  and  feelings  of 
colonies,  55  ff . ;  slavery  clause 
in  original  draft  of  Declara 
tion,  86,  note;  not  member  of 
Congress,  86,  163;  his  theory 
of  government,  102;  Lee's 
remark,  164;  simile  of  the 
whale,  236,  note 

Parliament,  resolution  for  re 
peal  of  Stamp  Act,  24;  au 
thority  of,  25,  28  ff.,  51; 
representation  in,  32  ff.,  51, 
76;  King's  following  in,  40; 
not  mentioned  in  Declara 
tion,  55;  custom  of  receiving 
the  King,  129 

Parliamentary  era,  emergence 
of  empire,  8,  15  ff.;  experi 
ments  in  colonial  policy,  19 
ff.;  the  leaders  in  the  debate, 
25  ff.;  central  problem,  27; 
constitutional  discussion,  27 
ff . ;  armed  resistance,  37 ;  the 
disturbing  personality,  37, 
51,  55  ff.;  summary  of  era, 
41;  compared  with  eras  that 
followed,  50,  52,  95,  184; 
its  leaders  not  acquainted 
with  America,  60;  prepared 
way  for  Union,  261 

Paterson,  William,  member 
of  convention  of  1787,  87 

Pennsylvania  vs.  Olmstead,  148 

Petersburg,  210 

Philadelphia,  assembling  Con 
gress  in  1774,  42  ff.;  the  city 
in  1787,  84 

Pierce,  William,  87,  note 

Pinckney,  Charles,  member  of 
convention  in  1787,  87;  pre 
pares  draft  of  constitution, 
92;  conservative  views  on 
government,  120;  position 
on  slavery,  125 

Pinckney,  Charles  Cotes  worth, 
member  of  convention  of 
1787,  87;  conservative,  120 


Pitt,  William,  the  constitution, 
24,  27;  member  of  group  of 
1 765, 25;  taxation,  29  ff.,  163; 
representations,  33  ff.;  ex 
pression  of  power,  35;  his 
overthrow,  38;  condition  of 
his  return  to  office,  40; 
tribute  to  Continental  Con 
gress,  48;  Newcastle's  ma 
jority,  67;  language  com 
pared  with  Washington's,  81 

Plymouth,  compact  theory,  70 

Poughkeepsie,  145 

Powhatan,  Indian  chief  and 
crown,  62 

Pownall,  Thomas,  member  of 
group  of  1765,  26;  expression 
of  power,  35 

Presidential  election,  189 

Puritan  Reformation,  71,  73, 
75  ff. 


Randolph,  Edmund,  member 
of  Constitutional  group,  87 

Randolph,  John,  member  of 
National  group,  132;  the 
tariff  and  politics,  159;  hat 
on  the  desk,  169 

Reconstruction  Bill,  203 

Repression  Acts,  36 

Revolutionary  era,  compared 
with  other  eras,  9,  50,  52, 
115,  I2i,  130,  134,  180,  197, 
219;  its  leaders,  43  ff.;  its 
document,  49  ff . ;  absence  of 
compromise,  52  ff.;  use  of 
force,  54  ff.,  79;  its  pam 
phlet,  57  ff . ;  compared  with 
French  Revolution,  69: 
origin  of  its  political  ideas,  69 
ff.;  England  of  I7th  century, 
73;  summary,  82;  constitu 
tions  in  the  States,  98  ff.; 
franchise  and  land,  143; 
centrifugal  tendency,  145; 
piers  of  arch  of  empire  laid, 
261 

Richmond,  210 

Rousseau,  political  ideas,  69  ff. 


Index 


275 


Royce,  Josiah,  rights  and 
duties,  248 

Rutledge,  Edward,  signs  Dec 
laration,  45;  contrasted  with 
Franklin,  49 


S 


Saint-Gaudens,  Augustus, 
statue  of  Lincoln,  214 

Salem,  64 

Scotch-Irish,  compact  theory, 
70 

Scott,  Gen.  Winfield,  message 
from  Lincoln,  180;  writ  of 
Habeas  Corpus,  202 

Seward,  W.  H.,  inaugural  group 
176;  relation  to  Lincoln,  225; 
Lincoln's  inaugural  address, 
232,  note 

Shays's  Rebellion,  Washington 
uneasy,  85 

Shenandoah  Valley,  211 

Sheridan,  Gen.  P.  H.,  Grant's 
despatch,  211 

Sherman,  Roger,  member  of 
group  of  1787,  87;  views  on 
slavery,  124,  127;  aristocrat, 
120,257 

Slavery,  basis  of  representa 
tion,  109,  123;  denounced  in 
original  draft  of  Declaration, 
122;  reason  for  omission  in 
Declaration,  122;  Franklin's 
remark,  122;  original  draft 
of  Articles,  122;  clause  in 
Constitution,  123;  sentiment 
in  Constitutional  convention 
124  ff.,  1 66;  inventions  and 
cotton,  139  ff.;  Washing 
ton's  mistaken  view,  139, 
260;  Missouri  Compromise, 
141,  183;  agitation  of  Garri 
son,  164  ff.;  annexation  of 
Texas,  1 68 ;  rights  of  petitions, 
1 68  ff.;  statue  of  Freedom, 
175  ff.;  territorial  expansion, 
183  ff.;  Dred  Scott  decision, 
174,  184;  a  sectionalizing 
influence,  185;  becomes  a 
positive  good,  185;  political 


organisation,  186;  popula 
tion  in  Slave  States,  187; 
emancipation  of  slaves,  203; 
slaves  a  military  asset,  208 
ff.,  217;  first  and  second 
inaugurals  of  Lincoln,  213, 
ff.,  241 ;  earlier  views  of  Lin 
coln,  174,  216,  238;  Fiske's 
statement,  220 

Smith,  Adam,  colonial  policy, 
18 

Smith,  J.  Allan,  118,  note 

Somerset  case,  26 

South  Carolina,  slavery  and 
original  draft  of  Dec 
laration,  122;  attitude  in 
1787, 125;  ordinance  of  1832, 
1 60  ff.;  resolution  on  seces 
sion,  179,  190  ff 

Spottsylvania,  210 

Stamp  Act,  introduced  23; 
repealed  24  ff.,  36,  51;  its 
author,  26;  constitutional 
question,  29  ff.;  Washing 
ton's  opposition,  65 

Stanton,  Edward  M.,  War 
Secretary,  210;  Lincoln's  re 
lation  to,  225 

State  Constitutions,  theory  of 
written,  98;  method  of  their 
adoption,  98,  100;  com 
pared  with  English,  99  ff.; 
system  of  checks  and  balances 
101;  distinctive  feature  of 
Revolution,  101 

Stephens,  Alexander  H., 
Southern  leader,  188 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  inaugural 
group,  176 

Story,  Joseph,  his  contribution, 

259 
Sugar    Bill,    introduced,    23; 

constitutional    question,    29 

ff. 
Sumner,     Charles,    Inaugural 

group,  176 

Sumter,  Fort,  198,  210 
Supreme  Court,  its  first  chief 

justice,  45;  makes  as  well  as 

interprets    law,     138;    final 

interpretation    of    Constitu- 


276 


Index 


Supreme  Court — Continued 
tion,   147  ff.,   157  ff.;  Mar 
shall  becomes  chief  justice, 

149  ff.,  259;  Jefferson  uneasy 

150  ff.;   Taney  administers 
oath,   173;  the  keystone  in 
the  arch,  174;  a  justice  writes 
in    retrospect,    192;    begin 
nings,  258 


Taney,  Roger  B.,  Inaugural 
group,  173  ff.,  213;  his  deci 
sions,  174,  178;  writ  of 
Habeas  Corpus,  202 ;  his  con 
tribution,  259 

Tariff  Acts,  159  ff. 

Taylor,  Hannis,  English  con 
stitution,  99 

Tennessee,  134,  206 

Tennyson,  Alfred,  lines  on 
Wellington,  235 

Texas,  1 68, 183 

Thackeray,  W.  M.,  obstinacy  of 
king,  38 

Toombs,  Robert,  Southern 
leader,  188 

Tory  Party,  divine  right  of 
kings,  39,  56;  return  to 
power,  74  ff. 

Townshend,  Charles,  member 
of  Parliamentary  group,  26; 
bill  bearing  his  name,  36,  51 ; 
served  under  Tory  king,  75 

Treaty  of  Paris,  beginning  of 
British  Empire,  16;  effect 
upon  colonies,  23,  59;  a 
change  in  colonial  policy,  95 

Treaty  of  1783,  created 
demand  for  empire,  95 

Tubman,  Harriet,  description 
of  war,  211 

Turgot,  colonies  as  allies,  41; 
answered  by  John  Adams, 
118 

Tyler,  Moses  Coit,  colonists 
and  mother  country,  62; 
mistaken  parallelism,  192, 
note 


Utah,  184 


Virginia,  wording  of  its  creden 
tials,  12;  referred  to  by 
Mansfield,  31;  facetious  re 
mark  of  its  delegate,  43; 
story  of  Indian  chief,  62; 
commissioners  in  conference, 
83;  convention  to  ratify 
constitution,  114,  146;  over 
stocked  with  slaves,  125; 
delegates  against  slavery, 
126;  secession,  207 

Virginia  Resolutions,  148,  160, 
1 88 

W 

Wade,  B.  F.,  176 

Walpole,  Horace,  67 

Walpole,  Robert,  English  lead 
er,  68;  common  sense,  235; 
question  of  goodness,  68,  244 

Washburn,  Senator,  179 

Washington,  George,  relation 
to  Lincoln  assumed,  i;  ap 
pearance,  2  ff.,  47;  an 
aristocrat,  3,  257;  the  rela 
tion  explained,  4  ff. ;  coun 
try  gentleman,  4,  90,  222; 
military  career,  5,  17,  46  ff., 
77,  79,  88,  91,  222,  241;  at 
headwaters  of  stream,  6,  225, 
258;  commanding  personal 
ity,  10,  46,  48,  82,  88,  92, 
1 02,  133,  220;  at  Williams- 
burg,  12,  65;  recognised  fact 
of  empire,  13  ff.;  conversa 
tion  with  Boucher,  14;  did 
not  sign  Declaration,  46  ff.; 
speech  in  Congress,  47;  un 
selfish  devotion,  47,  65,  248 
ff.;  General  Lee's  letter,  48, 
note;  Paine's  Common  Sense, 
58,  79,  120;  embodiment  of 


Index 


277 


Washington,  George — Cont'd 
colonial  conditions,  59  ff.; 
remark  concerning  King 
George,  62 ;  letter  to  London 
agent,  65;  faith  in  God,  69, 
72,  252  ff.;  views  on  political 
freedom,  77  ff.,  80;  writings 
compared  with  those  of 
Revolutionary  leaders,  78 ; 
letter  to  Robert  MacKenzie, 
78;  language  compared  with 
that  of  Pitt  and  Camden,  81 
ff.;  not  a  prophet,  83,  145, 
238;  at  Philadelphia  in  1787, 
84  ff.,  249;  combustibles  in 
the  States,  85  ;  insistence 
upon  the  concrete,  85,  232  ff ; 
president  of  convention, 
88,  241,  256;  position  in 
1787,  89  ff.,  100  ff. ;  his 
portrait,  90,  note;  influence 
of  recent  history,  95  ff.; 
writes  David  Stuart,  102; 
at  Newburgh,  105 ;  toast 
at  camp-fire,  106;  visits 
Boston  as  President,  107; 
spirit  of  compromise,  no; 
coercion  needed,  112; 
Patrick  Henry's  question, 
114;  confidence  in  the  people, 
120;  attitude  following  con 
vention,  120;  position  on 
slavery,  125  ff.,  139,  167, 
218,  260;  first  inauguration, 
128  ff.;  letter  to  Lafayette, 
129;  Fisher  Ames's  descrip 
tion,  131,  note;  aristocracy 
of  land,  143;  and  of  contro 
versy,  146;  in  the  early 
dawn,  172;  Supreme  Court, 
174;  in  the  mind  of  Lincoln, 
151,  194;  Declaration  and 
Constitution,  196;  a  radical 
cure,  200;  not  argumentative 
in  thinking,  78,  80,  223;  not 
pre-eminently  successful  in 
handling  men,  224  ff.;  use  of 
language,  226  ff.;  Maclay's 
description,  227;  Hamilton's 
assistance,  228;  not  an 
original  thinker,  233;  con 


trolled  by  prudence,  234 
ff.;  guided  by  expediency, 
237  ff.;  becomes  conserva 
tive,  240;  steadied  by  good 
ness,  243  ff.;  simplicity,  245 
ff . ;  sincerity,  246  ff . ;  charity, 
250  ff.;  imperial  ideal,  2545.; 
power  divisible,  259;  build 
ing  the  arch  of  empire,  261  ff. 

Webster,  Daniel,  member  of 
National  group,  132;  letter 
to  Clay,  151,  note;  reply  to 
Senator  Bell,  153;  lodgment 
of  power,  153;  debate  with 
Hayne,  154  ff.,  181 ;  Carlyle's 
description,  156,  note;  differs 
from  Madison  and  agrees 
with  Marshall,  157;  re 
sponds  to  old  toast,  158; 
debates  with  Calhoun,  169, 
178,  187;  last  days,  179; 
furnishes  argument  for  1861, 
190,  193;  relation  to  Lincoln, 
234;  question  of  goodness, 
244 

Webster,  Pelatiah,  prepared 
outline  of  government,  89; 
relation  to  Washington,  234 

Wellington,  Duke  of,  lines  of 
Tennyson,  235 

West  Florida,  135 

Whig  Party,  against  democ 
racy,  39,  75;  against  un 
limited  power  of  King  75 

Whitman,  Walt,  225 

Whitney,  Eli,  his  invention, 
141 

Wilderness,  the,  210 

Wilkes,John,68 

Williams,  Roger,  political  liber 
ty,  7i 

Williamsburg,  12 

Wilson  Henry,  inaugural 
group,  176 

Wilson,  James,  member  of 
convention  of  1787,  87; 
compared  with  Washington, 
89;  story  of  Pope,  93;  quotes 
Montesquieu,  106 ;  com 
promise,  109;  pyramid  of 
government,  144;  end  of 


278 


Index 


Wilson,  James — Continued 
government,     171  ;    original 
thinker,     233;     relation     to 
Washington,  234;  power  in 
divisible,  259 

Witherspoon,       John,       signs 
Declaration,    44 


Wolfe,  General  James,  at  Que 
bec,  1 6 

Wythe,  George,  signs  Decla 
ration,  45 


Yorktown,  12 


Jt  Selection  from  the 
Catalogue  of 

O.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


Complete  Catalogue  sent 
on  application 


Abraham  Lincoln 

The  People's  Leader  in  the  Struggle  for  National 
Existence 


By  George  Haven  Putnam,  Litt.D. 

Author  of  "  Books  and  Their  Makers  in  the  Middle  Ages,"  "  The 
Censorship  of  the  Church,"  etc. 

With  frontispiece  reproduced  in  photogravure 
from  the  portrait  by  Marshall. 

Crown  8vo.    $1.25  net.     (By  mail,  $I.4O) 

The  monograph  presents  the  main  events  in  the  career 
of  the  people's  leader.  The  development  of  Lincoln's 
character  and  the  growth  of  his  powers  from  boyhood 
through  his  work  at  the  Bar,  and  as  a  leader  in  the  political 
contests  that  preceded  the  war  for  the  restriction  of  slavery, 
and  his  final  service  to  the  country  as  War  President  and 
commander-in-chief  of  its  forces,  are  recorded  in  outline, 
but  with  such  measure  of  comprehensiveness  as  serves  to 
make  the  picture  and  record  practically  complete. 

From  Robert  T.  Lincoln 

"  I  shall  preserve  this  volume  as  one  of  the  most  treasured 
of  those  relating  to  my  father.  .  .  .  Your  narrative  is  full 
of  interest  and  of  freshness  and  I  have  read  it  throughout 
with  the  greatest  pleasure." 

From  the  New  York  Sun 

"  An  admirable  piece  of  work  that  constitutes  a  distinctive 
addition  to  the  increasing  mass  of  Lincoln  literature." 

From  the  Cleveland  Leader 

"  A  comprehensive  study  of  the  life  and  character  of 
Lincoln,  presented  in  a  direct  and  attractive  manner,  and 
with  decided  charm  of  style.  .  .  .  One  of  the  most  valuable 
books  that  has  yet  been  brought  into  print  concerning 
the  great  Captain." 

New  York  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons  London 


"  The  best  summary  at  present  available  ot  ih9 
political  history  of  the   United  States." 

FRANK  H.  HODDER,  Professor  of  American  History  in  the 
University  of  Kansas. 


American  Political  History 
1763-1876 

By  Alexander  Johnston 

Edited  and  Supplemented  by 

James  Albert  Woodburn 

Professor  of  History  and   Political   Science,   Indiana    Uni 
versity;  Author  of  "The  American  Republic,'* 
"  Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems 
in  the  United  States,"  etc. 

/*  two  parts,  each  complete  in  itself  and  indexed %  Ocatv*. 
Each,  net  $2.00 

1.  The  Revolution,  the  Constitution,  and  the  Growth 
of  Nationality.    1763-1832. 

2.  The  Slavery  Controversy,  Secession,  Civil  War, 
and  Reconstruction.     1820-1876. 

These  volumes  present  the  principal  features  in  the  political  history 
of  the  United  States  from  the  opening  of  the  American  Revolution  to 
the  close  of  the  era  of  the  Reconstruction.  They  give  in  more  con 
venient  form  the  series  of  articles  on  "American  Political  History  "  con 
tributed  to  Lalor's  "Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  Political  Economy, 
and  Political  History,"  by  the  late  Professor  Alexander  Johnston. 

"  These  essays,  covering  the  whole  field  of  the  political  history  of  the 
United  States,  have  a  continuity  and  unity  of  purpose ;  introduced, 
urranged  and  supplemented  as  they  have  been  by  Professor  Woodburn 
(who  contributes  a  very  necessary  chapter  on  the  Monroe  Doctrine)  they 
present  a  complete  and  well-balanced  history  of  the  politics  of  the  United 
States." — Hartford  Courant. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

New  York  London 


*  /  hare  known  nearly  all  the  marked  men  of  my  time,  but  I 
bare  never  known  one  equal  to  Hamilton,  " — Talleyrand. 


Alexander  Hamilton 

AN  ESSAY  ON  AMERICAN  UNION 

By  FREDERICK  SCOTT  OLIVER 

Popular  Edition,   idmo,    with  Portrait.     Cloth,   net,   75  cents. 

Limp  Leather,  net,  $1.23.     Library  Edition,  8vo,  with 

6  Portraits  and  a  Map,  net,  $2.50 

44  Adequately  supplies  a  real  want  in  political  history.  .  .  . 
A  living  portrait  of  the  man  himself  is  vigorously  drawn  in  the 
midst  of  the  historical  and  political  chapters."— FREDERICK 
HARRISON  in  London  Tribune. 

A  searching  study  and  masterly  presentment  of 
the  struggles  of  that  critical  period  in  American 
history  which — thanks  largely  to  the  influence  of 
Hamilton's  potent  personality — ended  in  a  firm  and 
enduring  union  of  States  which  long  threatened  to 
remain  jealous  and  discordant. 

It  presents  also  a  striking  and  authentic  portrait 
of  Hamilton  the  man ;  it  brings  us  to  a  right  under 
standing  of  him  as  one  of  the  most  illustrious  statesmen 
of  ancient  or  modern  times ;  it  gives  a  just  conception 
of  the  magnitude  and  solidity  of  his  achievement ;  it 
surrounds  him  with  his  friends  and  enemies ;  and  it  \ 
sets  him  off  against  a  panoramic  background  that  \ 
could  have  been  painted  only  by  one  who  combined  \ 
the  artist's  sense  for  the  significant  feature  with  an  ' 
encyclopedic  knowledge  of  the  political  history  of  the 
last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  opening  vears 
of  the  nineteenth  century. 


Q.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 
New  York  London 


American  Orations 

FROM  THE  COLONIAL  PERIOD 
TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME 


Selected  as  specimens  of  eloquence,  and  with 
special  reference  to  their  value  in  throwing  light 
upon  the  more  important  epochs  and  issues  of 
American  history. 

Edited,  with  introductions  and  notes,  by  the 
late  ALEXANDER  JOHNSTON,  Professor  of  Juris 
prudence  in  the  College  of  New  Jersey. 

Re-edited,  with  new  material  and  historical 
notes,  by  JAMES  A.  WOODBURN,  Professor  of 
American  History  and  Politics  in  Indiana  Uni 
versity. 

FOUR  VOLUMES, 

BACH   COMPLETE   IN    ITSELF   AND   SOLD   SEPARATELY 

Crown  octavo,  gilt  tops,  per  volume,  $1.25 
Set,  four  volumes,  in  a  box  •  .  5.00 
Half  calf,  extra 10.00 

SERIES  I.  Colonialism — Constitutional  Govern* 
ment— The  Rise  of  Democracy— The  Hise 
of  Nationality. 

SERIES  II.  The  Anti-Slavery  Struggle. 

SERIES  HI.  The  Anti-Slavery  Struggle  (Contin 
ued} — Secession. 

SERIES  IV.  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction — 
Free  Trade  and  Protection — Finance  and 
Civil-Service  Reform. 

"Regarded  merely  as  studies  in  language,  these  orations  contain  some 
of  the  most  eloquent  and  persuasive  speeches  in  the  English  tongue.  But 
more  than  this,  the  present  collection  has  a  permanent  historical  value 
which  can  hardly  be  overestimated.  The  very  spirit  of  the  times  is  pre 
served  in  these  utterances ;  and,  presented  in  this  cogent  form,  history  in 
a  peculiar  sense  repeats  itself  to  the  reader,  who  feels  the  impulse  of  past 
crtncsand  the  vitality  of  great  principles  behind  them." — School  Journal. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS 
NEW  YORK  LONDON 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO 


iw     vi*w     \jn      iint     SEVENTH     DAY 
OVERDUE. 

JAN  22  1938 

Urtrt  "Vf*  —  i  r\r\  n  

JAN    ^2  1938 

1 

H-Hki  —  B?  4  AC  d 

JUN  5     19bb 

^^ 

nfitJ 

,.ov  iisE 

\$3H&* 

aw^lr^ 

1\  j*  A  n  —  i  1  M  i"**  i**i  — 

MAH.  1     195y 

LD  21-95m-7,'37 

YG  58092 


OL 

^Ki  / 


^59991 


